1978/04/25 78-475
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FIRE CHIEF: James Riley
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
PARKWAY MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR: Sam Morita
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A Resolution of Support was adopted by the City Council
and presented to Diann Marsh, Anaheim Historical Society, relative to the nomina-
tion of the Carnegie Library building to the National Register.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following Proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"Mental Health Month in Anaheim" - May, 1978
"Clean Air Week in Anaheim" - May 1 - , 1978
"Safety Month in Anaheim" - May, 1978
Mr. Tim Geddes, Director of Public Affairs for the Lung Association of Orange
County accepted the proclamation on Clean Air Week and Diane Marchan on behalf
of the Junior Ebell Club of Anaheim on Safety Month.
PRESENTATION - PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE EDUCATORS: Miss Phyllis Stratton,
President of the Professional Association of Orange Educators, 525 North Schaffer
Street, Orange, first introduced those present representing the Orange Unified
School District: Dee Lorantz, President of the California School Employees'
Association; School Superintendent Dr. Ingwerson; Tom Markley, President of the
Association of California School Administrators; Bill Stock, President of the
Orange Unified Counselors Association.
Miss Stratton stated that the purpose of the visit was part of an outreach program
to inform the public that they wanted to become involved in community events. They
pledged their interest in the education of the children in the district, and further
expressed their appreciation for the support received from Anaheim. She then relayed
78-476
~_~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - A?ri] 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
some facts on the Orange Unified School District: it covered 108 square miles
with an enrollment of approximately 30,000 students from kindergarten through
grade 12. At present, there were 42 schools--28 elementary, 8 junior high schools,
4 senior high schools, ] continuation high school and 1 for the trainable mentally
retarded (TMR). One school a year had been opened in the last 6 years: Canyon
Hills TMR, Canyon High School, Santiago Junior High, E1 Rancho Junior High, Anaheim
Hi]is Elementary and Imperial Elementary. They would not be complacent, but would
continue to work diligently on the basics, and they also had one of the leading
special education programs in the County. They were governed by Board members
selected from 7 geographic areas, and they wanted the Council and the parents of
the community to know that they would continue to maintain their programs.
Mayor Seymour thanked Miss Stratton and the Professional Association of Orange
Educators for the service provided to Anaheim which was well served by the Orange
Unified School District.
PRESENTATION - WEST ORANGE COUNTY HOTLINE PROGRAM: Myldred E. Jones, President
of the Board of Directors of the West Orange County Hotline and Director of Training
explained that she was present to bring to the Council's attention the fact that
their organization provided hotline service to Anaheim as well as to solicit the
Council's support. She then outlined the program which was basically crisis inter-
vention through telephone service provided on a 24-hour, 7 day per week basis by
trained listeners. She then briefed the Council on her letter dated March 17, 1978,
further outlining the program (on file in the City Clerk's Office) as well as on the
pamphlet submitted explaining the services. She elaborated further giving the
number of calls received per month broken down into the various categories of crisis.
She then explained how the program was financed and concluded that the organization
was saving cities in West Orange County a considerable amount of money each year
because of their services by precluding the need for law enforcement and the inter-
vention of other governmental agencies since the assistance provided prevented the
eruption of a crisis situation.
At the conclusion of Council discussion relative to the merits of the program, Mayor
Seymour stated he believed Ms. Jones' request was to have the Council convey in the
1978-79 Budget that approximately $1,200 be allocated for the hotline program in
Anaheim on the basis of $1 per call with a projected 1,200 calls for Anaheim. Ms.
Jones stated that they would like to ask for that amount, but would appreciate
being considered for any amount.
Mayor Seymour thereupon asked the Council if they were of a mind to consider an expen-
diture of funds, the appropriate place would be in the Social Services Department
Budget under Mr. Vasquez.
Councilman Kott stated that since this was a volunteer organization, it had to defend
its own exsistence. He also questioned whether such an expenditure could be considered
a gift of public funds in terms of serving those outside of Anaheim. He did not know
how many Anaheim people were served, and whether or not they could be served with
services already available in the City. Thus, he could not consider the request
favorably.
The Mayor restated if the Council wished to investigate the matter at all, the
proper action would be to refer it to Social Services and have them submit a report
on which they could make a decision during the upcoming Budget sessions.
78-477
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the matter be referred to Social
Services for a report to be submitted to the Council for a funding decision on
the hotline program to be made during Budget sessions. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that without wanting to lead
Ms. Jones to believe that tax dollars would be approved for the program, he
did believe it to be a worthwhile program warranting investigation and discussion.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would also welcome the opportunity to view the
results of the investigation. However, he too believed the program to be an excel-
lent one, but agreed with Councilman Kott as to whether or not it was appropriate
for the City to contribute to the organization.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
minutes of the regular meeting held February 21, 1978, were approved with the
following addition to page number 78-240:
"Mayor Thom interjected that their concerns should have been made known to him--
the top--quicker. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the residents of the area
were concerned about the possibility of the subject operation infringing on their
rights. Inasmuch as there were $150,000 homes and up in the neighborhood, they
felt it would be inappropriate and, as well, the school was concerned relative
to the serving of alcoholic beverages in such close proximity."
Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED~.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,090,135.42, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
123: ANTENNA SITE LICENSE WITH MOTOROLA: (microwave radio relay equipment--joint
training/communications facility--Anaheim's share not to exceed $1,700) Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-248 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 18, 1978, from the Fire Chief. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ANTENNA SITE LICENSE WITH MOTOROLA, INC.,
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LICENSE.
78-478
City }{all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-248 duly passed and adopted.
153: ADDITION OF UPGRADE PAY TO AN EXISTING CLASS: At the request of Mayor Seymour,
Personnel Director Garry McRae explained that the New Business Representative was
a classification existing in the Utilities Department to handle new clients relative
to commercial or multiple residential needs. The position was in an area adjacent
to the Customer Service Representatives who were the employees normally upgraded
into the subject position. If the need arose because the New Business Representative
was not present, the Customer Service Representative would take over and perform the
higher type work.
The Mayor then asked what kind of training was given to Customer Service Representa-
tives, as well as the New Business Representative as far as their ability to deal
with the public.
Mr. McRae stated there was a training program conducted by the Customer Service
Division. No outside training programs were given on a regular basis.
The Mayor continued that he had received a significant number of public complaints
relative to how they were treated both by Customer Service, as well as new businesses
opening an account. That concern escalated to such a degree that if he looked
favorably on the subject request with an increase in expenditure of funds, he would
not be confronting the very derelict situation presently existing in that area.
Mr. McRae clarified that they were not asking for the creation of a new class, but
only seeking the machinery enabling people to do that work and be compensated for
it when it was required.
~yor Seymour confirmed that before taking any action, he was interested in first
knowing what was being done to deliver some type of Customer Service on new busi-
ness representation because, in his opinion, from the numerous number of complaints
he had received relative to the fashion in which the public was treated, it was a
disgrace.
Assistant City Manager William Hopkins stated that if such conditions prevailed, the
nature and content of the training program in that area should be evaluated with a
subsequent report as to the efforts being expended.
Councilman Roth believed that it would be difficult for the Personnel Director to
reply to such problem areas since they were not under his jurisdiction, but instead
Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt should be confronted.
MOTION: Councilman Kott stated that he had similar experiences relative to complaints,
and he was prepared to cast a negative vote today; however, he would like to know
more about the situation, and thus moved to continue the matter for two weeks with
staff to submit a report relative to Customer Service Representative training.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-479
q. ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ ,1978~ 1:30 P.M.
150/155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PEARSON PARK
POOL COMPLEX: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott,
the City Council finds that the Pearson Park Pool Complex will have no significant
effect on the environment, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to pre-
pare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
159: FEE SCHEDULE - REPLACEMENT, REMOVAL AND STORAGE OF BUS BENCHES: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-249 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 19, 1978, from Sam Morita, Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-249: A RESOLUTION OF ~HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SETTING THE FEES FOR BENCHES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-249 duly passed and adopted.
108: CONTROL AND REGULATION OF NEWS RACKS: Since Mr. Morita was present, Council-
man Roth asked if it was true that fees could be collected for bus benches because
they were placed on City-owned property, what was the status of news racks placed
on City-owned property.
Mr. Morita stated that news racks were handled by License.
Councilman Roth then explained that in a recent visit to the post office (Broadway
and Anaheim Boulevard) he noted 20 news racks, 9 of which contained pornographic
material. Thus, if the City charged a fee for bench space, that concept might be
carried one step further and charge a fee for pornographic vendors. He emphasized
he was not criticizing the legitimate press. He was also concerned that the racks
extended approximately 40 feet in front of the post office making it difficult for
patrons to open their car doors.
Councilman Roth thereupon requested that staff contact the Police Department or the
City Attorney be directed to do so to ascertain why the Anaheim law had not been
able to include pornographic-type news racks. He recalled at one time these racks
were picked up and delivered behind the Police Station to be collected from there,
but they were now all back. He wanted to know if something could be done from a
Constitutional aspect to remove such racks. He reiterated if the bench manufacturers
could be licensed, the same should hold true for pornographic vendor receptacles.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the Anaheim Municipal Coda contained
a news rack and public right of way ordinance providing for a rather comprehensive
program for the control and regulation of news racks. If it was not being enforced,
he would communicate that information to the Police Department. There was a provision
as to the number of news racks, their condition, and a stipulation that the display
of undesirable material was not to be outward so as to offend a passerby.
Councilman Roth asked that the ordinance be enforced.
78-480
Cjt~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
160: INFORMAL BID PROCEDURE FOR PURCHASE OF 1~000 FEET OF 500 KCMIL CABLE:
Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, elaborated on memorandum dated
April 17, 1978, from the Utilities Director for both Councilmen Kott and Seymour
relative to the necessity for requesting approval of an informal bid procedure
on the subject cable.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Purchasing
Agent was authorized to request informal bids for 1,000 feet of 500 KCMIL to replace
damaged cable of the electrical utilities system in accordance with Section 1211 of
the Charter. MOTION CARRIED.
150: TRANSITION OF PARK CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM INTO PARK REHABILITATION AND MAINTE-
NANCE PROGRAMS: Mr. John O'Malley, Employees representative of the Anaheim Munici-
pal Employees' Association (AMEA) stated they had a meeting with the Personnel
Department the previous Friday wherein they were informed that a reduction of
staff was to come about, and the Department itself had alerted the employees yester-
day to the layoff. At the AMEA membership meeting the night before, the distraught
employees attended and asked for assistance. Several areas to be explored with the
department were suggested relative to possible viable alternatives, and thus they
were now requesting a one week continuance in order to explore them with the Parks,
Recreation and the Arts Department and the Personnel Department prior to the City
Council acting on the matter. They were not asking for an extension of the May 12,
1978 date, but only one week's time for further discussion.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposal to
phase out the park construction operation and to establish a limited program of
park rehabilitation was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
Personnel Director McRae explained that when the Appeals Court decision was first
announced several months prior as outlined in memorandum dated April 20, 1978, from
James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts, they immediately discussed
the matter with AMEA, explaining that Personnel would keep them informed as further
facts became known. It was not until after the Budget hearing and subsequent dis-
cussion on the Parks Budget before the timing and extent of the matter was finally
determined. They had a number of conferences with AMEA in the interim, but of a
general nature. On Friday, April 21, 1978, they discussed the laying-off process
with AMEA, as well as reassignment. In accordance with the Memorandum of Under-
standing and Personnel Rules the Council had passed, they subsequently met with the
employees the day before, wherein some alternatives were explored which were undoubt-
edly discussed at the night membership meeting. When Mr. McRae talked with Mr.
O'Malley in the morning relative to what may be transpiring at today's meeting, he
(O'Mailey) indicated he was going to request a deferral. Further, a meeting was
already scheduled following the Council meeting to explore the alternatives that
AMEA wanted to present to the Council. Thus, there was compliance on both sides
with the terms and conditions agreed upon. The timing was a function of the Memo-
randum of Understanding, stipulating that the Personnel Director must notify them as
quickly as possible of anything relative to the matter, which had been done. They
were anxious to hear any ideas and supported the Council's action of deferring the
matter for one week. The important date against which they were working was May 12,
1978, and the goal was to give as much notice as possible to the employee organiza-
tion with subsequent review as quickly as possible with the Council.
78-481
--City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that what Councilman Kott was sharing by his earlier comments
in trying to assure sufficient time had been given to discuss the matter, was that
open, continuous and straightforward communication take place between the City
Manager's office, the Personnel Department and employees' associations. He (Seymour)
also wanted assurance that that type of open dialogue would take place, and that no
precipitous action occurred without being provided all the information that could
be garnered.
174: RATIFYING REVISION IN HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN~ TABLE III~ OF FOURTH YEAR CDBG
APPLICATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
Council ratified the revision in the Housing Assistance Plan, Table III, of the
Fourth Year Community Development Block Grant Application, as recommended in memo-
randum dated April 21, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Development.
MOTION CARRIED.
161: TERMINATION OF URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 78R-250 for adoption, as requested by the Committee at the Council
meeting of April 4, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING THE URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-250 duly passed and adopted.
114: PROPOSED TEAM APPROACH CONCEPT TO HANDLE MATTERS AFFECTING THE CITY: Mayor
Seymour stated that although he was able to progress to a certain degree on the
proposed program, (see minutes of April 18, 1978) he did not have the opportunity
to converse individually with Council Members, and he wanted to do so before making
any final decisions on the matter.
Councilman Roth moved to continue discussion of suggestions for establishing a
team approach program as indicated by the Mayor to handle matter affecting the
City for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
142: CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE: Councilman Roth presented a proposal for the forma-
tion of a 10-member Charter Review Committee to be charged with reviewing the entire
Charter with special emphasis on (1) expanding the Council to 7 members, (2) the
method of electing the Mayor, (3) limiting campaign contributions and/or expenditures.
This action was precipitated by Councilman Kott's proposed ordinance limiting expen-
ditures for political campaigns in January (see minutes of January 17 and 24, 1978).
At that time, he (Roth) suggested that the matter be held in abeyance until after the
April 11, 1978 General Municipal Election when consideration could be given of a
Committee to study not only that particular area of the Charter, but also others as
well.
Councilman Roth continued that it was time for a complete review of the Charter
since such a review had not taken place since 1964 although he doubted whether many
provisions needed to be changed. He reiterated that during the review, the Committee
place special emphasis on those areas previously articulated, and he thereupon related
78-482
City Hail, AnaI~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the following data relative to the expansion of the Council as well as the possi-
bility of Councilmanic Districts:
Results of questionnaires sent to Council candidates by the Chamber of Commerce
relative to the expansion of the Council to 7 members: 18 replies were received
from a possible 20--9 favored the expansion; 5 were opposed, and 4 made no indica-
tion or gave other qualifications. Relative to the election of a Mayor: 9 favored
the change,; 4 were opposed, and 5 made no indication or gave other qualifications.
Another Survey made by the Chamber in the November 1977 issue of "Pipeline" sent
to the membership indicated the following: 53 percent who responded felt the Council
should be expanded to 7 members; 39 percent were opposed, and 3 percent had no opinion.
A later survey in "Pipeline" indicated the following relative to district representa-
tion: 64 percent No, 38 percent Yes, and 9 percent no opinion.
Councilman Roth thereupon moved that a 10-member Charter Review Committee be formed
as outlined in the proposal presented with 2 appointees each to be made by the Council
within the next two weeks. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose
of discussion.
Councilman Roth also confirmed that his motion included directing the City Manager
and City Attorney to provide necessary staffing and meeting location for the
Committee. He further recommended that the Committee set its own pace relative to
completion of the Charter Review, select its own chairman and vice-chairman and
communicate with staff for any necessary assistance. He also stated in answer to
Councilwoman Kaywood, that his intent was not necessarily to have the questions
placed on the November ballot, because he was trying to avoid forcing deadlines
on the committee.
A lengthy discussion followed revolving around the proposal wherein Council Members
expressed their concern or had comments relative to the proposal as follows:
Councilwoman Kaywood:
1. She was opposed to an open time limit, especially if the Committee decided
to place questions on the November ballot. As well, the Council should have at
least 30 days in which to evaluate recommendations resulting from the review.
2. It was important for the Council to have a goal for the Committee in writing
before the Committee was selected rather than afterward.
Councilman Kott;
1. He introduced the issue of political campaign reform so that it could be
placed on the ballot, not to be studied by a committee.
2. He did not support a committee because, in his experience, everyone appointed
pawns who would exemplify that person's point of view, and in the final analysis,
the Council was responsible for making the ultimate decision.
78-483
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
3. His main interest was to give the people an opportunity to vote for any
changes, otherwise it was a waste of taxpayers'money to form a committee.
4. He was prepared today to place the three specific items outlined by Councilman
Roth on the ballot.
Councilman Overholt:
1. Although he approved of the concept of forming a committee to review the
Charter, his concern was relative to the language so as not to limit delibera-
tions to the three items because they might not prove to be the most important.
2. He believed that committees could do things the Council could not do in terms
of investigation.
~Mayor Seymour:
1. He would not oppose a committee process as long as its goals and objectives
were clearly defined and with a specific ending date.
2. In deciding the areas to be investigated by a Charter Review Committee, the
area of limiting campaign contributions and expenditures was one which he would
not have the time to investigate, and thus would be a proper charge for that
committee.
3. Relative to the method of electing the Mayor, he was prepared to answer that
question since he was opposed, under any circumstances, to the strong Mayor concept.
4. Relative to Councilmanic Districts, he was also totally opposed to that concept.
5. He would not oppose placing the question of expanding the Council from 5 to 7
members on the ballot.
6. He could support the proposed motion if the committee was charged with the
responsibility of investigating the limiting of campaign contributions and/or
expenditures, a "house cleaning" job on the entire Charter, the setting of a
time limit in which to conclude their activities, and that any proposed amendment
to the City Charter be voted upon by the people of Anaheim at a General Statewide
or Nationwide election to insure a higher percentage of the will of the people.
7. He also disagreed with the process of each Councilperson making their own
appointment although he participated in that process in the past, and recommended
that all appointments to boards and commissions as well require a minimum majority
vote of the Council.
Councilman Roth stated that he would modify his motion to indicate that the committee
should conclude its review in time to place any issues on the November ballot. How-
ever, he did not wish to preclude the possibility of the committee requesting addi-
tional time .
78-484
~_ty Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins interjected that some procedural matters relative
to the Charter also needed to be explored to make it conform to recent State
changes and laws, and he presumed that aspect would also be a charge of the
committee. The Mayor stated that should be a part of the Charter "cleanup".
~e Mayor also recommended that the Council, as a body, discuss the question of
expansion of the Council to 7 members, as well as the method of electing the Mayor,
which he believed could be resolved in one session since they were not complicated
issues.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested if the Council did so, but reached an impasse, sub-
sequently the matter should be passed to the committee.
Mayor Seymour clarified Councilman Roth's motion:
1. That each Council person appoint two members to the Charter Review Committee.
2. The Committee would be charged with reviewing the 3 specific items as outlined
in the proposal submitted, with some possible additions as directed by Council, along
with a review of the entire Charter.
3. City Manager and City Attorney to provide adequate staff as necessary and a
meeting place.
4. Recommendations to be submitted in sufficient time so that resultant issues
could be placed on the November ballot.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to amend the motion as follows:
1o Rather than 2 persons being appointed by each Council Member, that such
appointments be confirmed by a minimum majority vote of the entire City Council.
2. That items 1 and 2, expanding the Council to 7 members and the method of
electing a Mayor, not be directed to the Charter Review Committee, but that the
Council undertake those items to be resolved within the next 30 days and not more
than 2 work sessions, and if they reached an impasse, those issues would be passed
to the Charter Review Committee.
Councilman Roth seconded the amendment to his previous motion, however, reluctantly.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification as to when
they would have to receive input and recommendations from the Committee to place
any issues on the November ballot.
The City Clerk indicated that such information would have to be submitted by
approximately August 17 or 21, 1978. Councilwoman Kaywood stated it would then
have to be submitted to the Council by mid July for adequate deliberation.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion as amended. Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:10 P.M.)
78-485
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
121: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDEMNATION: Finding and determining the public
interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing condemnation of certain
real property located north of Nohl Ranch Road, westerly of Royal Oak Road, as
required for storm drain, sewer and public utility purposes, belonging to the
Janaco Financial Corporation, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Frederick
Ambuehl.
The Mayor opened the public hearing relative to condemnation of the subject
property.
Mr. Thomas Stoever, special counsel for the City of Anaheim, 1000 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles, stated that in the event the Council adopted a resolution of necessity
today, they were in a position to give the Council a graphic aerial view of the
proposed project which was posted on the Chamber wall.
Mr. Philip Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Hills, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, thereupon
briefed the Council on the project utilizing the aerial photograph, the main points
being:
1. The project was necessitated because it was imposed upon them by the City Engineer
as a development responsibility for the 170 lots now being graded on the south side
of Nohl Ranch Road.
2. The requirement was for the construction of an enclosed type storm drain to the
ultimate point of disposal, the Santa Ana River.
3. It followed the natural water course for the property, and it was the most
feasible connection to reach a section of public sewer. It had an approximate
3,800-foot reach, most of which was already within the existing public right of way.
4. The 3 properties involved in the dispute over the acquisition of the easement
were Janaco (Peralta Hills Estates), Mr. and Mrs. Jones and the Ambuehl property.
5. Anaheim Hills believed the proposed alignment of the storm drain did 'the least
violence to the terrain. It was to be built at their expense and rededicated back
to the City and also would benefit each of the properties along the drainage course
by providing permanent drainage.
6. They had conducted good faith negotiations with the property owners in question,
and provided them with a copy of an appraisal.
7. The easement areas to be acquired were relatively small along the 3,800 foot
area: approximately 1,480 square feet on the Jones property of their 1.5 acres;
approximately 5,530 square feet on the Ambuehl property of their 3.7 acres; and
approximately 19,000 square feet on the Janaco property of their 38.5 acres.
8. Condemnation action was a necessary step in order for Anaheim Hills to meet the
obligations of the bonded storm drain improvement imposed upon them as a City obliga-
tion for completion of their facility.
Mr. Morningstar, representing Mr. Jones, explained that at the time Mr. Jones
developed his property in 1975, he was required to dedicate approximately 39 feet
of the entire length of his property aligned with the future extension of Lakeview
78-486
City Hall, Ana~eim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
which was dedicated free to the City. Now, another 10-foot width off a corner
of his property was required which he did not believe was necessary and would
cause a hardship to him. Also, 5 tangerine trees would be eliminated by the action.
Mr. Jones was of the opinion that the planned facilities could be installed in the
39 feet he already dedicated, and there was no reason why it could not be moved
10 feet to avoid additional dedication. It would be a matter of great inconvenience
to Mr. Jones and unnecessary, whereas it was a matter of convenience to the developer.
Mayor Seymour then questioned City Engineer James Maddox as to why the storm drain
could not be aligned in the 39 feet already acquired from Mr. Jones.
Mr. Maddox first explained that the Engineering Division did not do the design or
work on the proposed plans, and as well, they had not been asked to review the plans
in the final stage.
The Mayor was concerned that the Council was about to consider whether or not to
condemn an individual's property, but yet the staff could not provide input as to
the reasonableness of the alignment.
Mr. Maddox stated that there were other possible alignments, but Mr. Bohac, the
engineer on the project, could speak to the exact reasons why the proposed align-
ment was more practical than some of the other alternatives.
Mr. Bettencourt explained that he and Mr. Bohac worked closely on the project, and
for the benefit of all, he then outlined in detail some of the complications involved
with alternative alignments outside of the easement area which, in the final analysis,
would do more violence to the landscape, would be more costly to construct, and take
nearly three times more right-of-way in certain locations which he pointed to from
the aerial photograph.
Further discussion then followed between Mayor Seymour and Mr. Bettencourt wherein
the Mayor asked if an exchange could be made of a portion of the 39 feet taken
previously and realign Lakeview so that Mr. Jones would not be asked to give up
more than he had already relinquished.
Mr. Bettencourt stated that Anaheim Hills did not wish to get involved in the
Lakeview question. They wanted to compensate the property owner for their easement
for an underground facility, and they believed the easement requirements were com-
patible with the future right-of-way requirements for Lakeview.
The Mayor reiterated that the question was a simple one--the project involved a
storm drain and sanitary sewer, and the Council was prepared to take action to see
that they were installed. Thirty-nine feet was already available, but if it was
the wrong 39 feet, then perhaps a shift ought to be made, thus precluding the need
for acquisition of an additional 10 feet from Mr. Jones' property.
A discussion followed revolving around the technicalities of the projects, as well
as possible alternatives regarding Mr. Jones' property, at the conclusion of which
Mayor Seymour pointed out that testimony revealed Mr. Jones owned a sliver of prop-
erty to the east, and his suspicion was that the Engineering Division or other City
staff had not investigated the possibility of ascertaining if some type of exchange
could be made. Instead, the City accepted the recommendation of Anaheim Hills and
their engineers relative to where they wanted to lay the sanitary sewer and storm
78-487
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April. 25~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
drain without looking at the entire situation and discussing it with Mr. Jones
or Mr. Morningstar. He had great difficulty authorizing action condemning some-
one's property even though it was underground, without an attempt being made by the
City to mitigate the situation.
Mr. Maddox emphasized that until they had near final plans, they had nothing to
check. Although to his knowledge no activity occurred between City staff and the
property owner regarding the alignment, condemnation was a condition of the Councils
contained in General Drainage Condition No. 45. This condition required the developer
to construct storm drain facilities from his development, within his development
and through the development to the ultimate point of disposal, and if unable to
acquire right-of-way, the City would then handle that aspect. The policy was for
the developer to negotiate with the property owner, and therefore, it was the
developers' responsibility to do so. He also confirmed for the Mayor that they
relied totally on what the developer indicated his needs were in this case in
conjunction with that policy. The Mayor then suggested that the policy should be
changed and reiterated his concern that no meeting had taken place with City staff
and the property owner.
Mr. Stoever explained that the representatives of Anaheim Hills had extensive negoti-
ations with not only Mr. Jones, but the Ambuehls and Peralta Hills. It was not the
City's resPonsibility at this point to enter into negotiations. Anaheim Hills had
gone through a great deal of trouble and expense to employ a professional appraiser.
Mr. Stoever had reviewed the appraisal, and he maintained presently it was simply a
matter of price. Correspondence showed that Mr. Jones wanted to appear at the meeting
to object to the various findings, but on the other hand, he would be willing to accept
$3,500 to end the whole matter.
Mr. Stoever also stated, for the record, that it was the intent of Anaheim Hills as
a developer in the project, to replace the tangerine trees as discussed by Mr.
Morningstar.
The Mayor asked then if Mr. Bohac could recite for the Council and the record what
conversations took place with Mr. Jones relative to the possibility of working
some exchange of right-of-way along Lakeview in exchange for some other land he
might own that would permit a realignment of Lakeview so that the storm drain and
sewer could be installed within the confines of the 39 feet already dedicated.
Mr. John Bohac, engineer for Anaheim Hills, spoke to the realignment of Lakeview
as requested, and stated that he had left communication with Mr. Jones and talked
to him by phone. Subsequently, after Mr. Stoever had sent Mr. Jones the final letter,
he (Bohac) went to see Mr. Jones to view and discuss the proposed plans for realign-
ment and what was going to be done relative to replacement of the trees. Mr. Jones
broached the point of the offer made to him based on the appraisal. He believed he
should receive more or suggested that the City could give him the sliver of land on
the other side. Thus, he would be willing to accept $1,200 and that sliver of land.
Anaheim Hills was willing to give the $1,200 even though appraised at $800, but they
had no right to indicate what the City would or would not do. The Mayor interjected
that was the essence of the problem--Anaheim Hills could not speak on behalf of the
City for the sliver of land in question, but nothing had been done by the City to
speak to that possible alternative, thus negating the need for condemnation.
78-488
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Stover then clarified for Councilman Roth that there was still room for
negotiation and such was the case right up to the courthouse steps.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved for a one week continuance so that Mr. Morningstar,
Mr. Jones, Anaheim Hills and City Engineer Maddox could meet to determine if a land
exchange could be negotiated relative to the subject matter in order to preclude
condemnation, but assure that the storm drain and sanitary sewer be properly placed.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he was not interested in overturning any
existing policies, but that staff should be looking at an alignment in conjunction
with the dedication already required of Mr. Jones.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 76-7A: In accordance with application
filed by Fredericks Development Corporation, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of an existing sanitary sewer easement located north of
Cerritos Avenue, west of Walnut Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-210, duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated March 6, 1978, was submitted recommending approval
of the abandonment, and the Planning Commission recommended approval.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in
opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the
Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environ-
mental impact report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement
to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-25! for adoption approving Abandonment
No. 76-7A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-251: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT FOR SANITARY
SEWER PURPOSES LOCATED NORTH OF CERRITOS AVENUE, WEST OF WALNUT STREET. (76-7A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-251 duly passed and adopted.
78-489
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-44 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1804:
Application by Konstantinos Mandas, et al, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL
to permit a drive-through restaurant with a waiver of required block wall on prop-
erty located at 1674, 1678, 1684 and 1688 Beacon Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-33 and PC78-34,
declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project, and further denied Reclassifica-
tion No. 77-78-44 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1804.
The action of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. Miss Santalahti also noted changes as follows:
vehicular access to the proposed development would be via a driveway on Euclid,
whereas originally a second driveway was proposed on Beacon Avenue; 32 parking
spaces would be provided instead of 35; 12-foot wide landscaped areas with a
4-foot berm adjacent to Beacon Avenue would be provided (6- to 12-foot area with
a 3-foot high berm originally proposed) plus the addition of a 6-foot masonry
wall, thus a waiver of the required block wall was no longer necessary.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Robert Michelson, 3823 East Cassel, Santa Ana, speaking for the applicant, first
stated that it was significant to understand the motivation behind the three owners
wanting to expand their present business, Foodland Market. That business was owned
and operated by three families for 13 years, and they had been in the food business
for 20 years. They had reached the point where they wanted to expand their business
operation, and they surmised the only way to do so was to acquire additional land
adjacent to their present site and propose a development in keeping with the history
of the family, basically food service. They intended the proposed restaurant to be
family owned and operated, and food would be supplied to the restaurant through their
purchasing power in the supermarket, thus further expanding the family business.
Mr. Michelson continued that the plan reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commis-
sion was the one poosted on the Chamber wall encompassing four adjacent single-family
lots which were the subject of the zone change. The first three would be used for
a drive-through restaurant and the fourth zoned commercial to be held as a residence
and at sometime in the future converted into a parking lot or storage room to the
rear of the market.
There were two significant factors considered by the Planning Commission of primary
concern: (1) waiver of the block wall--when the applicants proposed such a waiver,
they reasoned they should not hide a nice building with a block wall. That reasoning
proved to be a mistake and they now had no objection to installing the block wall to
provide protection for the neighborhood. (2) drive way out onto Beacon--such a
driveway would be a convenience to the patrons of the restaurant and the market, but
it was not necessary. Thus, they would withdraw that request eliminating any access
from Beacon Avenue.
78-490
C~t_~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Michelson explained that essentially they were presenting a revised plan
with a 12-foot setback and a 6-foot masonry wall as required by Code, along with
an extensive landscaping plan. They also wished to withdraw the request to rezone
the fourth lot at this time. Thus, the only thing to be considered was the three
lots to be developed in the manner as depicted in the plan. They hired a profes-
sional landscape architect so that, along with a 6-foot wall, they would install
an undulating berm with masses of trees to soften the effect, along with a solid
hedgerow of trees that would eventually block the view totally from the neighbor-
hood. Mr. Michelson then presented a conceptual plan of the project which was
created from a slide of the property and then a drawing imposed on the slide re-
suiting in a good representation, although reducing the number of trees for a better
visual analysis of the plan itself.
In concluding, Mr. Michelson stated that since there were four significant changes
to the plan: (1) elimination of driveway on Beacon, (2) addition of the required
wall, (3) additional landscaping to soften the effect and provide a beautiful
accent to the neighborhood, and (4) withdrawal of the request for rezoning of the
fourth lot, they were perhaps significant enough to warrant another review by the
Planning Commission if the Council so desired. If so, they would have no objection
to such action. He further stated that the applicants were very concerned that the
neighbors were upset over the proposal, and it would be foolish to do something that
would antagonize them because many were customers and potential customers of the
market and the proposed restaurant. They had a desire to develop the project in
a proper manner, and provide all the necessary protection to the neighborhood that
was economically feasible to accomplish.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Michelson stated that the owners did not
live in the fourth house, but all four houses were being rented by them.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Ronald Cameron, attorney representing homeowners, stated that he spoke to
Mr. Michelson approximately 10 days before and viewed the revised plans. He
(Cameron) may have inferred that the plan should be resubmitted to the Planning
Commission since it differed from the original site plans; however, he stressed
the intent was not to ask the Council to authorize such action, but instead the
project be voted down on its lack of merit. In the first place, it was indicated
in the petition for reclassification (his Exhibit "D" in the extensive documentation
just submitted to the Council) that there were no deed or tract restrictions on
the property which was not accurate. The petitioners purchased the four properties
in 1972, 1973, 1975 and the last more recently. Covenants, conditions and restric-
tions (CC&Rs) had been from the inception and still were in force limiting the entire
property and the use of the tract to single-family residential, such CC&Rs being
for the protection of the owners, applicable for 20 years with renewal for 10-year
periods thereafter. Mr. Cameron then further elaborated upon the Code section per-
taining to the restrictions imposed relative to CC&Rs of which the petitioners were
aware. Also included in the material presented were signatures of 120 residents in
the tract stating their opposition. He also had approximately 150 additional signa-
tures of surrounding neighbors on Crone and other streets within 2 to 3 blocks who
were also unanimously opposed even though as a matter of law, these neighbors were
not to be immediately considered. In the tract itself, only 7 of 49 were in favor,
and of those 7, 5 were owned by the petitioners and the other two owned corner lots
on Euclid. He was thus speaking for those 42 people opposed.
78-491
Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Cameron stated that in terms of the petition for reclassifi-
cation, the Anaheim Municipal Code stipulated that in order to justify a zone
change, the following three items must be true: (1) it must be in the public
necessity, convenience and general welfare. They failed to perceive what was
indispensible and necessary in justifying another restaurant at the subject
location since between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue on Euclid Street, there
were 20 restaurants at the present time, and some similar to the one proposed.
Relative to convenience, no one would have to walk more than a block or two
to get to a restaurant, and the petitioners had not demonstrated the project
benefited the community as a whole. In essence, the petitioners had not carried
the burden of proof necessary to justify a zone change in the area, and they
were requesting a "no" vote on the reclassification request.
Mr. Vernon Sharp, 1687 West Beacon, explained that when the original action was
brought before the Planning Commission, he signed the petition and spoke against
the project as originally submitted. It was his impression from remarks given
at the Planning Commission hearing that if the plan was reworked and resubmitted,
it would be considered favorably. His objection was to the driveway proposed on
Beacon. In reviewing the revised plan however, he believed it to be reasonable
and now favored the project. He explained that he was the original owner at
1688 West Beacon, one of the properties involved in the proposed rezoning, and
the second owner of 1687 Beacon located on the corner of Beacon and Euclid,
directly across from the proposed project. He maintained the area was no longer
a quiet residential neighborhood it was at its inception.
The following people spoke in opposition to Reclassification No. 77-78-44 and
Conditional Use Permit 1804:
Mrs. Sally White, 809 West Broadway (owner of property at 1651 Beacon Avenue),
to emphasize her opposition asked one question--which one of the Council Members
would welcome an invasion of their residential area by the replacement of four
homes with a hamburger stand.
Mrs. Carol Reese, 1670 Beacon Avenue (22 year resident): (1) There was an alley
behind her home in a "U" shape plus a private drive from Foodland Market. At
night, traffic raced through that area causing excessive noise, and (2) trash
was constantly going into her yard.
Mrs. Mary Donovan, 1650 Beacon Avenue (14 year resident): (1) They had young
children and did not like the prospect of a change in an environment that a
drive-in restaurant would bring, and (2) it was their neighborhood and the
petitioners were proposing to change it.
Mr. Fortinberry, 1629 West Beacon: (1) CC&Rs ran for 25 years automatically
unless one-half of the homeowners decided to change them, and (2) there was an
excessive amount of traffic between Ball Road and Lincoln Avenue at present,
and a recent article relative to traffic on Euclid revealed that it was ranked
third for having the most fatal accidents in the Anaheim/Fullerton area. They
did not want more traffic in their area, and they would continue to fight to
preclude further generation.
78-492
C_i.t:y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Marie Osowski, 1634 Beacon: (1) Arden Street deadended into Beacon and traffic
now traveled down Beacon from Euclid and turned left on Arden to go to Crone, as
well as further east. This traffic was already excessive. Even if the only access
was placed on Euclid, people would still travel down Beacon and that much more
traffic would be generated. That was her major opposition to the project.
Jane Pitts, 1614 Beacon (20 year resident): (1) When Mr. Sharp purchased his house,
he was aware of the traffic on Euclid because the traffic had been there since she
lived in the tract. (2) It was difficult now to find a parking space in the
Foodland parking area, and thus the problem would be amplified by the addition of
a drive-in restaurant. (3) She was opposed to the noise, smell and trash that
would result, and emphasized she was thoroughly against the project, and (4) she
took issue with Mr. Sharp's statement that he understood the Planning Commission
would look favorably on the project if some revisions were made to the plan. In
essence, one of the Commissioners indicated he might reconsider if it was made
commercial for parking for Foodland Market, but not for a restaurant.
In summation, Mr. Michelson first stated that the points presented by Mr. Cameron
were legal technicalities which could hardly be denied, and such technicalities
could be found for almost anything. That did not mean they did not have respect
for the concerns of the people in the neighborhood and in the area. The point
was, they did not win or lose on legal technicalities, but wanted to prove they
could be good neighbors and do something that was acceptable. He then spoke to
the traffic and contended that a commercial venture of the type proposed was not
a primary traffic generator. Further, since they had now limited access, there
would be no notable increase of traffic on Beacon Avenue.
Mr. Michelson requested favorable consideration of the project, and again stated
they would be willing to go back to the Planning Commission for a review of the
revised plans if the Council wished to do so.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-252 and 78R-253 for adoption,
denying Reclassification No. 77-78-44 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1804,
respectively, thereby upholding the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that considering the shortage
of housing, the City could not afford further intrusion into a residential neighbor-
hood, and that was her major concern, to keep the neighborhood a residential area.
Councilman Seymour'stated it was unfortunate that Mr. Michelson did not have the
opportunity to work with the owners of Foodland and with the neighbors at the
outset, especially in relaying information of the proposed plan to the residents.
Now, the Council was faced with an amended plan, but a very hostile neighborhood.
Although the Council may be inclined to ask the Planning Co~mission to reconsider
the amended plan, it was a matter of ndt wanting to be subjected to the hostility
in the neighborhood. He would thus support Councilwoman Kaywood's resolutions of
denial.
78-493
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 2.~., 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt expressed his concern that the Council was being asked to re-
view plans that the Planning Commission had not seen, while on the other hand,
they were being presented~with a document submitted by Mr. Cameron just before
the meeting which they could not possibly read prior to making their decision.
However, he believed he had done what was necessary in order to vote on the matter,
and stated he would support the resolutions of denial.
Councilman Roth agreed with the Mayor relative to the lack of communication between
the petitioner and the neighbors, and he would have given more consideration before
proposing any access onto a residential side street. He was also amazed that no
consideration had been given to moving the whole operation to the front of Foodland
Market, and using the corner lot for parking which, if properly screened and walled,
might have been an acceptable situation. He also supported denial of the reclassifi-
cation and conditional use permit.
Councilman Kott stated he supported the resolutions of denial because the residents
had a right to privacy, and the project would bring a new intrusion, and he thus
supported their cause.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolutions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-252: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (77-78-44, CL)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-253: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1804.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-252 and 78R-253 both duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3000: Application by Asawa Corporation to construct
a free-standing sign with code waiver of minimum distance between free-standing
signs on CH zoned property located on 1701 North Kraemer Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-47, reported that
the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class il, of the
City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report Guidelines, and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, and further denied
Variance No. 3000.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
78-494
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Bill Asawa, 540 North Golden Circle Drive, Santa Ana, stated that he spoke to
the people in the surrounding neighborhood and submitted a petition signed by
residents in the 300-foot radius within which there were 29 single-family residences
as well as apartments. He personally spoke to 23, and 22 were in favor. He did
not know the sentiment of the 6 that he did not have an opportunity to speak with.
The people mostly impacted by the additional proposed sign would be the property
owners to the west and to the north, and all of those people signed in favor on
the front of the plat. The 7-11 sign would front on the Orangethorpe side and
the Winchell's Donuts sign would front on Kraemer Boulevard. Normally, if there
were objections to the application, people would be opposing the application itself,
but with 22 of 23 residents contacted in favor of the variance, he believed that
was an indication the proposed sign would not create a problem. As well, an
overwhelming majority of the residents were in favor of the businesses that were
going to locate there. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the people
within the 300-foot radius would be most impacted, but his best supporters were
the people adjacent to his property, and they were well aware of the type of sign
they were proposing to install.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Planning Director that the proposed activities falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 11, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an environmental impact report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered a resolution in support of Variance No. 3000, reversing the
decision of the City Planning Commission for the following reasons: (1) Mr. Asawa
sought and gained the approval of his neighbors and (2) he understood from a business
standpoint that with a 7-11 market, there was a requirement for signing, and as
well, the Winchell's Donut operation needed an additional sign. He maintained
that the location of the property was such, particularly on Orangethorpe, that
signing would not have a detrimental effect on the community.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the City's sign ordinance
and stated that in considering the streets west of the river such as Lincoln, Euclid
and Brookhurst, miles and miles of strip commercial existed with attendant signs.
She did not want to see the same repeated in the Canyon area and this was an oppor-
tunity to prevent such an occurrence.
Councilman Seymour stated his sentiments were the same as Councilwoman Kaywood's.
The area involved could be considered as part of the Canyon, and the Council had
been extremely restrictive in granting any sign variances in that area. He conceded
that mistakes had been made in the past with the interior or other parts of the
City relative to signing, and he did not want to see that precedent reset in a new
area, thus he would vote against Variance No. 3000.
78-/495
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that since the City had a sign ordinance, he would vote
in support of that ordinance and against the requested variance.
A vote was then taken on the resolution proposed by Councilman Roth and failed to
carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-254 for adoption denying
Variance No. 3000, and thus upholding the decision of the Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-254: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3000.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-254 duly passed and adopted.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - PERALTA CANYON PARK DEVELOPMENT PHASE II: (Account No.
16-4309-805-18-0000) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-255 for
adoption awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated April 18, 1978. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-255: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
I~PROVEMENT: PERALTA CANYON PARK (PHASE II) PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-4309-805-18-0000. (Sully-Miller Contracting
Company, $20,603.50)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-255 duly passed and adopted.
160: AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE ORDER OF AIRCRAFT ENGINE: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to amend
the purchase order issued to Tallmantz Aviation for the purchase of a spare
turbo-charged aircraft engine, as authorized by Council on April 11, 1978, by
adding an additional $566.16 as tax, since the previous action indicated that
the tax was included in the price of the $9,436, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 117, 1978 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
7S-49 ~
(iit~ ttall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~. 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-41 (TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 9749 AND 9750): Request by
Anaheim Hills, Inc., for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-41,
proposed RS-HS-10,O00 (SC) zoned property located south of Nohl Ranch Road between
Imperial Highway and Anaheim Hills Road.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an extension of
time to Reclassification No. 76-77-41 was approved to expire May 10, 1979, as
recommended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED.
147: REQUEST - COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT NOS. 2 AND 3: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, appointment to the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District Nos.
2 and 3 was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: The following claim was denied and referred
to the City's self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Robert L. Quackenbush for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a power failure on or about March 4, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 114: City of Burbank Resolution No. 18,321 opposing the 208 Milestone Report
of SCAG (Waste Treatment Management Plan for the South Coast area).
b. 175: Before the PUC Application No. 57763, Notice of Resetting Hearing of
Mexicursions, Inc., a corporation, for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity to operate passenger stage tour service between points in the County
of San Diego, on the one hand, and various points in Orange County on the other
hand, and between the City of Anaheim, on the other hand and various points in
San Diego County, on the other hand.
c. 175: Before the PUC, Final Opinion on Case No. 9988, Phase II, determination
of a lifeline volume of gas and a lifeline quantity of electricity and into gas
and electric utility rate structures and the changes, if any, that should be made
in presently constituted rate structures to provide a lifeline quantity of energy
to the average residential user for specified end uses.
d. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of March 16, 1978.
e. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of April 10, 1978.
f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of April 5, 1978.
g. i05: Community Services Board - Minutes of March 23, 1978.
h. 175: Monthly Report for February - Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering
Division and Utilities Field Division.
78-497
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE HALL PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. A Public Dance Hall Permit for the Sociedad Progresista Mexicana, Inc., to hold
a dance in the Carpenters Hall, 608 West Vermont Street, on May 14, 1978, from
3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. (Ruth C. Hernandez, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-256
through 78R-259, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-256: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (La Palma Ltd.;
Five Coves East; Leonard John Moxley, et ux.; Robert C. Lohmann, et ux.; David
Knowles, et ux.; Young Francis Hammatt, et ux.; Laurence R. Leggett, et ux.;
Gilbert E. Nash, et ux.)
151: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-257: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH JAMES
RONALD SPANGLER AND BARBARA DALE SPANGLER (77-11E).
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-258: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM BOULEVARD
SEWER IMPROVEMENT, N/O LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
11-4309-720-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 18 1978
2:00 P.M.) ' '
174: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-259: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - AREA 1 & 2 STREET & ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS; AREA 1, 2 & 4
BARRIER REMOVAL; Area bounded by La Palma Avenue, Union Pacific Railroad,
Cypress Street and Anaheim Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF.
(Bids to be opened May 25, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
7~-498
(;it¥ liall, Anal~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Roil Cal.l Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-256 through 78R-259, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3847: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3847 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3847: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 6,
CHAPTER 6.32, SECTION 6.32.060 RELATING TO DISCHARGING FIREARMS OR FIREWORKS.
Roll Call Vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
~e Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3847 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3848: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3848 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3848: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-14(1), RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3848 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3849 AND 3850: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3849 and
3850 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3849: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM b~NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-40, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3850: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(7), RS-5000, Tract 10031)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3849 and 3850 duly passed and adopted.
78-499
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3851: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3851 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3851: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-41(2), RS-HS-10,OO0,
Tract 9751)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3851 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3852 AND 3853: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3852
and 3853 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3852: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(22), RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3853: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-14(2), RS-HS-22,000)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785: (Joseph Conrad, 801 South Anaheim Boulevard)
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern relative to the subject conditional
use permit in that 90 days had expired, and the conditions placed upon the
petitioner had not yet been met.
Miss Santalahti recounted that the action was originally approved by the Council
on January 17, 1978, and Mr. Conrad was given a 90-day period in which to com-
plete construction of an 8-foot block wall to enclose the storage yard area for
his towing service which 90 days was completed on Monday, April 17, 1978. There-
after, an appeal was made and the Council reconsidered the matter, and subsequently
reaffirmed their previous action on February 14, 1978, but they did not reestablish
the 90-day period which continued to run from the January 17, 1978 date. She
had personally been confused relative to the expiration of the 90 days, as well as
Mr. Conrad, but, in fact, it did terminate as of Monday, April 17, 1978. She con-
tinued that a certain amount of time was usually given to comply with conditions,
and the normal intent was that the petitioner finalize what was supposed to have
been done. Often circumstances occurred such as weather causing a delay, and
people occasionally did run over their time limitations. In this instance, the
block wall had been constructed along the west property line separating an alley
from the use, and the ditches had been dug for the foundations for the wall along
the north property line which she observed that afternoon. However, there was no
commencement of work along the block wall either on the south side or the west
side facing ~aheim Boulevard. The south side had single-family residences adja-
cent to it and they were in opposition to and most impacted by the use.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that at the February meeting, Mr. Conrad indicated
if he received approval, the wall would be constructed in 30 days as stated in
the minutes of that meeting.
78-500
Citj! Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
blt. Whitey Walp, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated that nothing at all had been
done to the southerly property line wall adjacent to residences and no permits
had been pulled for its construction. When he spoke with Mr. Conrad that morning,
he (Conrad) was still under the impression that he was going to be able to add an
additional 2 feet of block atop the existing wall. Mr. Walp then checked with the
Building Division and they were emphatic that the addition could not be properly
accomplished in that manner, but instead it had to be an engineered wall. He ex-
plained that alterations could be made to the existing wall to add the additional
2 feet by installing pilasters at increments so as to support the additional weight.
As an alternative, he could remove the existing wall and install the necessary
footing to build a proper wall. Mr. Conrad was of the opinion that the latter
would not be necessary.
Mr. ,Joseph Conrad, 801 South Anaheim Boulevard, explained that before he came
to the meeting, he checked with an assistant in the Zoning Division relative
to an interpretation of when the 90-day period for constructing the wall ended,
and was told he had another month to complete the wall. Mr. Conrad then elaborated
on the problems involved in raising the existing wall, but he assured the Council
that whatever needed to be done would be done, and he had all intentions of completing
it properly.
Councilrgan Kott asked Mr. Conrad to speak to the complaints he (Kott) had
received relative to cars being worked on in the parking lot, noise intrusion
on Sundays, beer cans being thrown over the fence, etc., which he did not be-
lieve was a tolerable situation.
Mr. Conrad explained that one incident which occurred on a Sunday causing noise
intrusion involved the son of the man who owned the body shop and had nothing to
do with his operation. Just that morning when Mr. Walp arrived on the premises,
there was a young man underneath a car fixing a hose in the driveway which he
should not have done. He emphasized, however, that Mr. Walp could come by at
any time, and although there may have been a number of complaints, he had not
been formally cited for any violations since he had been operating at that
location.
Discussion then followed revolving around Councilwoman Kaywood's question as
to whether Mr. Conrad was planning to raise the existing wall along the southern
boundary line. Mr. Conrad stated that the contractors after taking the plans to
the Building Division informed him that they had everything necessary to raise
the wall, and if footings were required to hold it up and make it sound engineering
wise, he would do so. He planned to comply with the Code, but his only problem and
misunderstanding revolved around the time limitation. He also had a letter from
Zoning requesting him to stop all action until after the February hearing was held.
Miss Santalahti clarified that action was in connection with the Stop Work Order
that was issued. When they knew the matter was again to go before the Council
in February, they did not want Mr. Conrad to proceed'on the possibility that the
Council would reverse its previous decision. As soon as the Council reaffirmed
its decision, it was no longer in effect.
78-501
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25.2 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Conrad maintained his position was that the 90 days commenced from that partic-
ular time. He would have preferred to have the wall completed by this time, and
one part was expected to be completed within the next 3 or 4 days. He also confirmed
for Councilwoman Kaywood that the engineers and contractors were responsible for
seeing that the wall was raised properly to 8 feet. Further, the existing wall
belonged to the property owner, Mr. Casey, who was required to install the wall at
the outset.
Councilman Roth stated in the last 12 months, one of the two matters on which he
received the most calls and complaints was Mr. Conrad's operation. When he offered
the resolution for approval of the conditional use permit with attendant conditions,
he stated he would not permit one day's extension of time to the 90 days given for
completion of the wall. The question was a simple one, had the 90 days expired or
not. He, therefore, directed his question to the City Attorney since he believed
that interpretation by staff was secondary to the duties and responsibilities of
the City Attorney's office. He emphasized if the interpretation by the City Attorney
was that the 90 days had expired, Mr. Conrad would have to move off the property
because he would not grant any further extension of time.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the time established was a 90-day period from
January 17, 1978, to April 17, 1978. Thus, the actual number of days would have
expired on April 17, 1978. Apparently there was some misunderstanding on the part
of Mr. Conrad, but it would require a hearing for an extension of time to go'beyond
the April 17, 1978 date. No extension or hearing had been granted by the Council.
Mr. Keith Bird, 121 MacArthur Manor, then offered the following information
relative to the matter:
1. It was his understanding at the conclusion of the February 14, 1978 rehearing,
that it was perfectly clear that the 90 days started in January.
2. He wanted to know when the neighborhood was going to have equal treatment;
they had been patient, but Mr. Conrad had failed to become the good neighbor
he had promised to be.
3. On occasion, after he and his family had been up since 1:00 a.m., he met
Mr. Conrad at his tow facility at 2:00 a.m. after calling him relative to noise
coming from the body shop.
4. Mr. Conrad was not limiting the number of vehicles stored in the area to 25.
That figure was exceeded by over 100 vehicles being present at all times. Presently,
10 or 12 were parked out in front, and had been there for several weeks which was
again a violation of his permitted use.
5. Another problem was the drainage of excess water and oil from steam cleaning
operations undertaken on a daily basis. These flowed into the alleyway which was
a public access, and large pools of sediment were allowed to accumulate until they
evaporated. He had spoken to Street Division staff on several occasions, and
Mr. Ron Beam had been out to see the existing conditions.
78-502
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P..M.
6. Mr. Conrad had 114 days thus far to complete the wall, and if he was a serious
businessman interested in holding onto his business, he would not leave it up to
hearsay at the last minute to get out of the conditions placed on the use of the
property. If his intentions were at all honorable, conditions would have been met
with no lapse of time.
7. They were still concerned about the criminal element in the area, and on
January 15, 1978, they caught one of Mr. Conrad's employees in their backyard,
which employee had stolen an item from Mr. Conrad. He was concerned about leaving
his family with people lurking in his backyard. Whether or not it was Mr. Conrad's
employee or someone trying to break in to his facility, the criminal element was
still there because Mr. Conrad's business was there.
8. Dismantling of cars was now taking place on the property although it was
hearsay on his (Bird's) part because he could not look over the fence. However,
they had a statement from one of the neighbors on South Street who did see Mr.
Conrad on several occasions dismantling impounded vehicles.
9. The operation was now not only an impound and storage lot, but also it had
turned into a junk yard, and he emphasized that noise generating from the business
on weekends when Mr. Conrad was operating under a conditional use permit was a
violation of that permit.
In concluding, Mr. Bird stated that the community was beginning to feel they were
not getting the representation they deserved in the Council's allowing Mr. Conrad
certain conditions. Relative to the 90 days, it was their feeling that period
expired on April 17, 1978, and it was not to be extended beyond that time without
good cause. He maintained no good cause had been shown to this point to justify
the extension, and thus Conditional Use Permit 1785 should be revoked.
The following persons then spoke briefly to the matter, recounting some of the
additional problems experienced revolving around Mr. Conrad's impound and storage
yard, and urging the Council to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 1785 for the
noted violations: Mrs. Rosaria Kaesler, owner of 107 MacArthur Manor; Mrs. Billie
Bird, 121 MacArthur Manor, and Mrs. Sharon Farmer, 106 MacArthur Manor.
The Mayor gave Mr. Conrad an opportunity to answer the allegations raised wherein
he (Conrad) contended that overall, his operation for the last few months had been
cleared up to a great extent discounting a couple of petty occurrences which had
been mentioned, and the 8-foot block wall would eliminate further intrusion or problem.
There were joint tenants on the property, but anything that occurred was deemed to
be his responsibility. Although he realized that there were an excessive number of
cars on the lot, this was due to the building going on, thus causing a temporary
rearrangement of the operation. As soon as the block wall was completed, it would
clear everything up and they would get all of their parking spaces back. There were
approximately 25 employees, plus other activity was taking place relative to the
already established businesses on the property which involved parking in front.
78-503
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that parking in front was specifically prohibited.
Mr. Conrad took issue with the statement and explained that the parking in front
was for employee parking, and several hundreds of parking spaces were involved. He
maintained it would be impossible to park 25 or 30 cars in the rear, and the property
in front could be legally used to park cars.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney what alternate courses of action the Council
might take from doing nothing, to the other extreme of asking Mr. Conrad to appear
at a public hearing on an Order to Show Cause why his conditional use permit should
not be revoked.
City Attorney Hopkins first stated that since the item was not on the printed agenda
today, no action could be taken. However, one alternative would be to set the matter
for a public hearing to consider whether or not the conditions of the conditional
use permit should be modified to extend the time to a future date to enable Mr.
Conrad to complete the subject wall, or to set the matter for a public hearing as
indicated by the Mayor on an Order to Show Cause why the conditional use permit
should not be revoked. Doing nothing technically would involve a violation of the
conditions, and something that would subject Mr. Conrad to a penalty. Those were
the alternatives.
Councilman Kott also asked the City Attorney to elaborate on the legal implications
that could result should the permit be revoked since Mr. Conrad was told by a staff
member that the expiration date was in May.
Mr. Hopkins did not know what a court would decide, but indicated there might be
some element of detrimental reliance on the part of Mr. Conrad if such statement
were made, and he could convince the court that he felt the person had the necessary
authority. However, the Council resolution and the minutes of the meeting clearly
set forth the time of 90 days as well as starting date.
Miss Santalahti stated that typically, a petitioner knowing he was under a time
limitation would contact the Department to verify if there was a problem. She
personally had not heard of Mr. Conrad speaking to anyone in her Department until
today, and not the week prior when the time period would have expired; Mr. Conrad
stated he would not have inquired on April 17, 1978 because he would not have known
the wall should have been completed by that time.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had some sympathy for Mr. Conrad in offering him
every opportunity possible to live up to what his interpretation was regarding what
he thought he agreed to. On the other hand, if the Council permitted an extension
of time or even granted a hearing to consider an extension of time, that action
would only cause Mr. Conrad to invest more dollars while still resulting in con-
tinuing complaints from the neighborhood from which he believed would be validated
as violations of the permit relative to activities taking place on that property
by either the City Zoning Enforcement Officer or other City employees. Subsequently,
there would be a hearing to show cause why the permit should not be revoked.
7~-504
(]~_t~]l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: The Mayor further stated that as good a neighbor as Mr. Conrad wanted to
be, it was the use and the type of activity taking place on that property that would
prevent any well-meaning person and good businessman from being that good neighbor.
He thus favored the action of asking for a public hearing on an Order to Show Cause
why Conditional Use Permit No. 1785 should not be revoked. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to abstain
because he was not a party to the original hearing. However, if the point was
reached of considering the merits of the conditional use permit, he would partici-
pate, and intended to make himself familiar with the situation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion requesting that a public hearing
be set. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
168: POLITICAL POSTERS: Councilwoman Kaywood asked the status of the question of
requiring bonds from candidates who placed their posters on utility poles, the ob-
ject being that the City not incur any expense in removing them. She did not recall
what had been determined when the matter was broached approximately two years prior.
Even though it was against the law to attach anything to utility poles, there were
numerous signs on these poles throughout all of Anaheim. She contended it was very
dangerous because of the nails and clips used to secure the material, and it was a
matter of the safety factor relative to employees who had to climb those poles.
Although Councilman Kott agreed with the thrust of Councilwoman Kaywood's questioning,
he maintained it was difficult to get involved in such a situation from the enforce-
ment aspect and unrealistic to do so.
Councilman Roth stated that the FPPC required that the name and address sponsoring
the sign be placed on it which would provide an avenue of recourse. He was the one
2 years ago who suggested that the committee or person be billed for sign removal,
but could not get a second to his motion at the time. His action was prompted by
the fact that in previous years City crews took the signs down and stored them,
enabling candidate or committee to pick them up at a later date and subsequently
reinstall them, which he considered to be a waste of public funds.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to require a bond of all political candidates
so that any posters or other such material placed on utility poles in whatever
manner they were secured, be removed by City crews, and that candidate be billed
accordingly. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for discussion.
Councilman Roth offered a substitute motion that the matter be continued for three
weeks so that input could be obtained from cities who have instituted such plans.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION
CARRIED.
148: ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION - LEAGUE OF CITIES MONTHLY DINNER MEETINGS: Council-
woman Kaywood stated that she had worked diligently to get the Orange County pivision
of the League of Cities to hold their monthly dinner meetings at the Anaheim
Stadium Club. She had received a communication from the League thanking the staff
at the Stadium for the outstanding buffet dinner, the attention, service, etc., and
further stating that they would now make the Stadium Club their permanent meeting
place. She also added her thanks to the staff and was proud and delighted with the
78-505
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
manner in which they were handling the group. As well, the number of those
attending had almost doubled.
105: RESIGNATION OF MARY DINNDORF FROM HACMAC: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the resignation of Mary Dinndorf from the Hill and
Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) was accepted. MOTION CARRIED.
148: CONSIDERATION OF WITHDRAWAL FROM SCAG: Councilman Kott stated that the
Council should give consideration to the matter of SCAG to which he had been
opposed since 1963. His feeling was that the City could lose its autonomy and
local control of matters because SCAG's primary thrust was regional. Because of
this, to him it inferred an identity loss for cities and states. He maintained
there was enough support and evidence from other cities in the area tq justlfy
his offering a motion that Anaheim withdraw from SCAG. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if either Councilmen Kott or
Roth had attended any SCAG meetings; both answered they had not, but Councilman
Kott contended that it was not necessary to attend meetings in order to know about
an organization.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had received a letter from Senator Paul Carpenter in
which he enclosed a copy of a bill being introduced to create a replacement for
SCAG, but more on a local or county basis, rather than being locked in with Los Angeles
or other Los Angeles areas. He (Seymour) had previously submitted a copy to each
Council Member for their information. Thus, before any action was taken on the
motion, he recommended that the Council, as a body, discuss merits or demerits of
Senator Carpenter's communication. The Mayor was also not certain that the City
should remain a member of SCAG, but he wanted to be certain before abandoning the
organization, if that should come to pass, that there was another organization to
revert to. He was concerned mainly with the channel of funds that flowed through
SCAG and the consequences should an abrupt decision be made without evaluating
other alternatives beforehand.
Councilman Roth clarified that although he seconded the motion, he did not intend
that Anaheim withdraw from SCAG, especially considering that the City had recently
paid their dues in the organization. Other cities such as San Diego wanted an
organization within a County level, and he supported that as an alternative. He
also noted that there were several other cities in Orange County not members of
SCAG who were still able to receive grants. Thus, he did not consider the elimina-
tion of receiving grants to be an intimidating factor.
Councilman Kott thereupon stated he would withdraw his motion and offer a substitute
motion that staff present the Council with alternatives so that .the City would
not take any losses. Councilman Roth accepted the withdrawal of the first motion
and also seconded the substitute motion.
Before a vote was taken, Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that staff could
present such alternatives and also explained that the item was under review by
the mayors of the cities of Orange County to be discussed the latter part of the
week.
78-506
_C.i. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 25~ 1978~ 1:.30 P.M.
Councilman Kott thereupon amended his motion to have the input as a result of
the meeting incorporated in the report to be submitted in 30 days.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was the only active Council Member in SCAG,
having served on the SCAG Executive Committee when Anaheim was an at-large city
and currently serving a two-year term on the Executive Committee as Alternate
Delegate to the Cities of Orange County. She explained there were regional
problems which could only be solved by a regional solution, noting for instance,
that air pollution could not be stopped at the border, or water, or other items
which were necessary to approach regionally. She suggested that those who had
not read the series in the Anaheim Bulletin on SCAG do so, and that staff supply
copies to those Council Members.
115: OBJECTS OF ART FOR THE NEW CITY HALL: Councilman Kott referred to a memorandum
from David Latshaw, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, relative to the subject.
As one Council Member, he objected to putting objects of art in the new City Hall
because he did not believe people visiting City Hall came to view such objects.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion.
Adjourned: 5:55 P.M.