1978/05/02City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-507
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Captain Neal Hogan of The Salvation Army gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag. ..
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: A Resolution of Condolence to the
Children of Mrs. Neva Parson, a very active community leader, was unanimously
authorized by the City Council and accepted by her daughter, Mrs. Beatrice Hurley.
Mayor Seymour also requested that a moment of silence be observed in memory of
Mrs. Parson.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and
unahimously authorized by the City Council:
"Meals on Wheels Week in Anaheim" - May 8-14, 1978
"Cultural Arts Month in Anaheim" - May 1978
"Older Americans Month in Anaheim" - May 1978
"Anaheim Oranges Day" - May 2, 1978
Mrs. Jackie Terrell accepted the proclamation for Meals on Wheels, and
Mrs. Marguerite Lee accepted the proclamation for Cultural Arts Month in
Anaheim.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
minutes of the regular meeting held April 11, 1978, were approved subject to
typographical corrections. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
78-508
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $679,900.67, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
174: CONTINUANCE OF THE EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE IN THE 1977-1978 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT: (Amendment to agreement with S.M.C. Motor Inn, Inc.--
Sandman Motel--extending the term to June 30, 1978) Councilman Kott offered
Resolution No. 78R-260 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 24,
1978, from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-260: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND S.M.C. MOTOR INN, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SANDMAN MOTEL, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT.
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-260 duly passed and adopted.
174: REVISED HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR SUBMISSION TO HUD: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a revised Housing Assistance Plan
for submission to HUD, with current year housing assistance goals recalculated
according to the new formula, was approved as recommended in a memorandum dated
April 26, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: APPRAISAL OF FOUR PARCELS OF EXCESS LAND: (Agreement with Mr. Lawrence
O'Toole, M.A.I. for $2,400) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council-
man Overholt, an agreement with Mr. Lawrence O'Toole for appraisal of four parcels
of land at an estimated cost of $2,400 was approved as recommended in memorandum
dated April 19, 1978, from the City Engineer, and the City Attorney was direct'ed
to prepare subject agreement. MOTION CARRIED.
174: GRANT PROJECTS - BRING FORWARD AS NEW REVENUE EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATION FROM
FY 1976-77: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the carrying forward of the following Grant projects in the balance of the fiscal
year 1976-77 as new revenue/expenditure appropriation was approved:
EDA Barrier Free Anaheim (17-707-4309)
EDA Lincoln Avenue (17-724-4309)
EDA Alley Improvement (17-723-4309)
SB-821 Bike Trails (10-728-4309)
SB-821 Bike Trails (10-728-4309) (new)
$33,791
$38,341
$ 7,645
$79,022
$46,507
MOTION CARRIED.
City .Hall, Anaheim~ Cal~fornia- COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-509
123: EXTENSION OF TIME AND APPROVAL OF LOAN DOCUMENTS: (Richard E. Duffy,
dba Jolly Roger Inn, west side of Harbor, south of Katella) Councilman Seymour
offered Resolution Nos. 78R-261 and 78R-262 for adoption, approving an extension
of time to September 30, 1978, as recommended in memorandum dated April 25, 1978,
from the City Engineer, and approving loan contract documents as recommended in
memorandum dated April 26, 1978, from the City Attorney's Office. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-261: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
RICHARD E. AND MARGARET A. DUFFY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Jolly Roger Motel)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-262: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING LOAN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR MANUFACTURERS BANK AND RICHARD E. AND
MARGARET A. DUFFY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF
APPROVAL.
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-261 and 78R-262 duly passed and adopted.
158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: (east side of Gilbert, south of La Palma,
Parcel 1 - Robert Morgan, Parcel 2 - Fernando Barrera) Councilman Seymour
offered Resolution No. 78R-263 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated
April 18, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-263: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AGREEING TO SELL CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY. (East Side of Gilbert Street, South
of La Palma Avenue Well Site)
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-263 duly passed and adopted.
128:~_ F_IN_ANCIAL STATEMENT REVIEW FOR NINE MONTHS ENDING MARCH 31~ 1978: Relative
to the subject Financial Statement Review (on file in the City Clerk's Office),
Councilman Kott asked for clarification on several aspects of the review by
Financial iDirector, George Ferrone. Thereafter, discussion followed between
Mayor Seymour, City Manager Talley and Mr. Ferrone, basically revolving around
a question posed by the Mayor regarding the purpose of the Income and Expenditure
Statement. He (Seymour) maintained it was to show at a glance what occurred in
relationship to income and expenses, and although the review showed budget in
actual for revenues, that was not true of expenditures. He believed it was as
important to know the status of expenditures as well as revenues.
78-510
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Although Mr. Talley agreed with the Mayor, he stated it was more important to
separate expenditures and revenues by funds so that a balance by funds would be
available.
The Mayor was particularly concerned relative to the Utilities Department and
the huge cash flows that took place in that area. However, on the Income
Statement--by Object Code--budget expenditures for Electric Power, Water,
Debt Service, Capital Outlay and Other were not listed. He wanted to know why
it was not important to budget expenses in that area.
City Manager Talley explained what they tried to do was set up revenues and
monitor those much more closely than expenditures for the first year, but next
year it was planned to have both figures, as well as by fund.
Mr. Ferrone elaborated on the matter stating that in the municipal environment,
it was typical practice to budget everything on an annual basis, both revenues
and expenditures. In the Mafis II process, the fact that revenues were broken
down by months was a significant achievement and in the coming year, the same
would be done with expenditures. Thus, the figures requested by the Mayor would
not be available until Mafis III.
Councilman Overholt asked that the first schedule - Revenues and Expenditures by
Fund also indicate, "for period ending", included in the title since the present
schedule only showed a March 31, 1978 date. He also asked the same to be done
on the last schedule - Council Contingency Fund.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Financial
Statement Revenue for the nine months ending March 31, 1978, as presented by
the Finance Director, was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
123: DESIGN OF 25-METER SWIMMING POOL AT PEARSON PARK: (agreement with Dakan
Engineering not to exceed $40,000) Councilman Kott referred to the proposed
agreement attached to memorandum dated April 26, 1978, from the Director of
Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, and thereupon asked for clarifica-
tion of certain aspects of the agreement which questions were directed to both
the City Attorney and Mr. Ruth.
Mr. Ruth first explained that they did solicit proposals from architectural
firms as outlined in his memorandum. As to the responsibility for proper
construction of the pool, Mr. Ruth stated in other agreements he had negotiated,
the engineer or architect was responsible for seeing that the structure was
built according to plans and specifications which he prepared. The City would
then provide on-site inspection as with other projects.
Further discussion followed wherein some of the major points clarified by City
Attorney Hopkins for Councilman Kott were as follows: he had reviewed the agree-
ment and coordinated it with Mr. Ruth and found it to be a proper legal document
that would give the City the desired design for the pool. Relative to any errors
in engineering design and ultimate responsibility, engineers and architects were
reluctant to state in agreements that they were fully responsible. However, if
they were negligent in any way in performing their professional duties, the City
would have recourse against them. They were also reluctant to say that they shall
supervise the construction because that would imply that they had a duty to be
78-511
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
responsible for that work which was done by the construction contractor.
Relative to the City having insurance guarantees, professional engineers
were involved, and they guaranteed that they would use professional archi-
tects and engineers on the job. Standards of performance were required by
the State. Thus, no insurance process was specified because the agreement
covered primarily engineering and design work.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-264 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated April 26, 1978, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and
the Arts. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-264: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND EARL DAKAN DOING BUSINESS AS DAKAN ENGINEERING COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (not to exceed $40,000)
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-264 duly passed and adopted.
153: TEMPORARY HELP SERVICE CONTRACTS: City Manager Talley referred to memorandum
from the Personnel Department received April 27, 1978, requesting that the Council
reconsider its policy relative to temporary help by authorizing the Personnel
Department to solicit proposals for such services. If found to be cost effective,
they would subsequently recommend the use of such contracts.
Mayor Seymour thereupon posed a number of questions relative to the proposal first
questioning why, with existing employee levels, it was necessary to hire temporary
help. He then questioned or commented upon the present procedure for acquiring
temporary assistance, salaries, controls on such hiring, transfer of employees from
one department to another when assistance was needed, and like questions. His~con-
cern was authorizing the opening of the doors to acquiring temporary help when, in
his opinion, it was not necessary. He viewed it as a total misuse of taxpayers
funds unless it involved a lengthy disability and it could not be handled within
the City by a show of cooperation between departments. He did not favor such
assistance to cover for vacations when the department head had the ability to ask
his employees to split their vacation periods if the situation warranted it. As
well, he maintained that the Personnel Director or the City Manager had not made an
honest effort to go out and recruit on the open market for a lower wage for such
services (intermediate typist clerk, key punch operator, secretary).
Am a result of the Mayor's extensive questioning, concerns expressed, and opposition
to the proposal, both City Manager Talley and Personnel Director McRae clarified
and/or explained the following:
1. Temporary help was used to cover short-term absences of up to 30 days maximum.
2. A temporary pool of 5 to 10 people on an on-call basis had been maintained over
a number of years primarily for vacation and long-term illness relief. Staff believed
there would be cost benefits in evaluating the labor contractor concept in order to
78-512
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
maintain that pool, the biggest source presently being prior City employees.
3. It was expected that an hourly rate for an ITC from a temporary employee
service would be $4.50 an hour as opposed to City cost of $4.68 an hour (be-
ginning special junior step).
4. Relative to control, under the new Budget format, the Council would approve
X number of hours for every program unit, and the program manager would be expected
to deliver for those work hours. If the Council approved such a policy, it would
not matter if regular full-time employees were used, part-time City acquired or
part-time privately acquired people performed the work units.
5. From a labor relations standpoint, it would be an exception rather than the
rule to ask an employee to split-up his vacation period.
6. Other governmental agencies had advised that temporary help service contracts
were a more economical vehicle to secure part-time people. Staff was merely asking
to research this possibility.
7. The part-time incumbent became a City employee and therefore must be placed in
a City classification for the period of time employed by the City. Thus, that
person must be paid at a rate agreed upon with the bargaining unit. However, there
was nothing in the agreement stating that the City could not negotiate separate
rates for temporary help.
8. When labor agreements were negotiated, the City was obligated to pay an ITC
a range of pay based upon the City's salary structure. Even if another classifica-
tion was chosen such as a junior clerk, that person would have to be paid accordingly.
As well, if the person was willing to work for less, the City was still obligated
by those labor agreements to pay within a certain range.
Since the Mayor did not agree with the recommendation to solicit proposals, Mr.
Talley stated that he would withdraw the request and continue doing business as
usual. The Mayor stated he did not believe business should be continued as usual
and if Mr. Talley was going to withdraw the request, he wanted a report submitted
on his (Talley's) policy for handling vacations and where the temporary service
would be used.
Mr. Talley stated the only place the service would be used was when a program
manager made a determination that he could not fill-in within his own operation
and the department head concurred in that request.
The Mayor thereupon stated that was where he found fault with the City Manager's
policy. He believed it to be Mr. Talley's responsibility as the Chief Executive
and Operating Officer of the City to insure every possible stone be turned to find
that department head a replacement. Either that or it was the Personnel Director's
responsibility and not the department head's.
Councilwoman Kaywood took issue with some of the points raised by Mayor Seymour
and asked for clarification relative to his statement concerning vacations.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-513
The Mayor reiterated that the department head had the discretion of discussing
the matter with his employees as to whether or not they could split their vaca-
tions if the department was in a particular bind. If it was not possible and
thereafter the City Manager was contacted to see if a secretary was available
for a period of time and that too was not possible, then it would be in order to
go to a temporary pool if the work load could not wait.
Mr. Talley stated he would be willing to stipulate to that procedure.
After further discussion, Councilman Overholt stated that the motion was
merely to approve the solicitation of proposals to furnish temporary help
from private enterprise. If the result showed it to be cost effective to
utilize such temporary help service contracts from time to time, the Council
as well as the Mayor might agree with such an approach. He for one could not
determine what they were dealing with until he saw what the proposals were, and
thus would vote to authorize the solicitation.
Councilman Roth stated he could also support the concept because he believed it
wise to have people available. He recommended after lining up temporary people
that a review be made approximately 6 months thereafter to see where those people
had been placed, for how long, how much they had been paid, etc. The Mayor would
then be justified in questioning the City Manager relative to the record of exper-
ience.
Councilman Kott first stated that interdepartmental movements of employees should
continue to fill-in when necessary. Also, he believed that the Mayor was trying to
say that there was no apparent effort on anyone's part to recruit people if they
were necessary on somewhat of a lesser pay scale than at present. He supported
the Mayor's position relative to the matter.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Personnel
Department was authorized to solicit proposals from temporary help services to
provide temporary on-call employees for use by City departments in the job classi-
fication of Intermediate Typist Clerk, Keypunch Operator and Secretary. Council-
men Seymour and Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
137: TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY: (employee group life insurance policy No.
GL-11742-1) Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-265 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum received April 2, 1978, from the Personnel Director.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-265: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL
LIFE INSURANGE COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH DISABILITY INSURANCE AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
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-265 duly passed and adopted.
78-514
C_iity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
156: UNCLAIMED PROPERTY - PUBLIC AUCTION AND DECLARING NEED FOR PUBLIC USE:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-266 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated April 25, 1978, from the Chief of Police. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-266: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ON
JUNE 3, 1978.
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-266 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, Notice of Transfer
of Unclaimed Property for City use to the Purchasing Department was approved,
and the City Clerk directed to publish said notice. MOTION CARRIED.
114: ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES - SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL: ($325 - Account
No. 10-4501-103-01) Councilman Kott stated that although not a great deal of
money was involved in this program, he was going to vote against the proposal
since he believed the City could accomplish the same thing without Sister
Cities International.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, annual mem-
bership dues for Sister Cities International in the amount of $325 was approved.
Councilman Kott voted "No" MOTION CARRIED.
In relation to the upcoming visit to Mito, Japan on May 20, 1978, which delegation
he would lead, Mayor Seymour asked for an appropriation from the Council Contingency
Fund not to exceed $1,000. %he purpose of those funds would be to cover the cost
of proper presentations, resolutions and recognitions of the entire 24-member 'Council
of Mito and other official dignitaries. He emphasized it was not his intent to in-
clude in that cost any travel expenses such as airfare, hotel, food or any other
expense incurred on his behalf. He personally felt that he was capable of covering
the cost of all his travel expenses for the trip. Thus, the $1,000 would be
strictly for the presentations as outlined.
Discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the travel expenses
might be since when the Council agreed to go into the program, she asked what it
was going to cost the City so as to preclude any large expenditure. Even though
the Mayor was going to pay his own expenses, in the event there were a couple of
trips a year to Mito and someone else were to go, she believed it to be appropriate
that the City pay for the trip if it remained part of the Sister City Program.
Mayor Seymour estimated the cost to be approximately $2,000.
On motion by Councilman Roth,~ seconded by Councilman Overholt, an expenditure from
the Council Contingency Fund not to exceed $1,000 for presentations to official
dignitaries of Mito, Japan (no trip expenses involved) was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
78-515
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123/158: JOHN MARSHALL PARK LAND ACQUISITION PAYMENT TO LDS CHURCH: (Parcel 3,
$182,880, intersection of La Palma and Romneya) Councilman Kott offered Resolu-
tion No. 78R-267 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 27, 1978,
from the Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-267: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A CORPORATION GRANT DEED AND ORDERING THE RECORDATION AND PAYMENT
THEREFOR. (Parcel 3)
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-267 duly passed and adopted.
115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING BOND COSTS: Councilman
Overholt moved to receive and file the report dated April 27, 1978, from the
City Engineer relative to the subject, requesting that the previous recommenda-
tion for execution of an agreement with Roofing Inspection and Consulting Service
be considered. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion for the purpose of
discussion.
Councilman Roth stated that although he appreciated the information submitted
relative to long-term bonding, he was more interested in obtaining cost figures
for a 5-year insurance policy stating that the roof would not leak or a bond to
that effect to see how it would compare with the $5,300 proposed to be spent for
a part-time inspector who accepted no liability.
Discussion then followed between Mr. Talley, Mr. Maddox and the Council which
revealed the following: (1) the contractor guaranteed the roof of the project
for a period of 2 years as per the bid. Staff was seeking a method where they
could be reasonably certain that the quality of the work would not only meet
the bid document, but also last for some time after two years. (2) The consullant
did not guarantee that the roof would not leak for 20 years. (3) The special con-
struction inspector would not fix the roof or pay the cost of having it repaired.
(4) The original recommendation by staff was that, in view of the fact the type
of roof specified was unique, they would prefer to have an expert watch the entire
installation to assure that the City was getting a roof that would last for 20 years.
However, there was no assurance or recourse relative to installation after the 2 years
if the roof started to leak. (5) The Council was now asking for 5- to 10-year bond
cost figures instead of 20 years. (6) Other inspection services, required involved
inspection and testing of steel, concrete cylinders, soils testing, and other specialty
items not normally the responsibility of the program manager. At the time of roof
installation, 8 or 10 other items would be in process such as air conditioning,
heating, partitions, etc., and it would not be possible for the general inspector
(program manager) to scrutinize all activities. (7) The Council had previously
approved other special inspections such as soils testing, steel and concrete in-
spection. The roofing inspection would be the last of the special inspection
requirements.
78-516
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that he had requested further information on cost
of the roof installation since he was interested in knowing the cost of the
project as it related to the cost of inspection. It was important to him
because he believed the City was dealing with a diminimous item.
Councilman Roth reiterated that if the City was going to pay $5,300 for a roofing
consultant, that cost should carry with it a guarantee for 5 or 10 years. If it
did not, he questioned the value of the expenditure. Rather than spending $5,300,
he would prefer a bond equal to a guarantee assuring that if anything happened to
the roof within 5 years, it would be repaired accordingly.
The Mayor believed the question to be a simple one--if the roof leaked after 2 years,
who would pay for making the necessary correction?
City Manager Talley stated that it would depend on why it leaked. If it was installed
incorrectly and an inspector saw the installation, it was his opinion that inspector
would be liable.
City Attorney Hopkins explained the subject was a complex one, and a great deal of
study had been done by his office thus he was quite familiar with the legal aspects
of the matter. The inspector merely insured and watched over the installation to
make certain it was done properly. If the roofing company subsequently went out
of business, into bankruptcy, or the like, and there was no one to sue, the inspector
could testify as to what actually occurred on the job. He could be used as an expert~
witness in court against the general contractor.
The Mayor clarified that the City would be paying $5,300 to (1) insure that a pro-
fessional inspector was watching the roof installation and (2) he would be a future
witness in case there was a necessity to go back to the general contractor as an
avenue of recourse.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the Mayor's assessment was correct.
Councilman Overholt stated then that guarantees or warranties only applied to
the contractor, but had nothing to do with the inspector.
Councilman Kott stated that he thought the issue was over and done with, and
he did not want any more taxpayer funds spent that would not guarantee or insure
that leaks would not occur. He did not see any assurance that an expenditure of
$5,300 would accomplish anything.
Councilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (3:10 P.M.)
Thereupon, Councilman Overholt moved to continue the matter for two weeks, and
staff directed to submit costs of the roofing segment of construction as well as
an estimate on a 5- and 10-year roof warranty. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. Councilman Roth was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (3:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:15 P.M.)
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-517
121: CONTINUED 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 Corpora-
tion, Mr. and Mrs. Harold R. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Frederich Ambuehl. (continued
from April 18 and 25, 1978)
Mr. Philip Bettencourt, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, stated
that during the intervening period from the last public hearing, they did
follow Council's instruction and met with the engineering staff and repre-
sentatives of Mr. Jones' interest. As a result, a satisfactory understanding
was reached, and Anaheim Hills thus acquired the necessary easement for the
storm drain on Mr. Jones' property.
Mr. Thomas Stoever, special counsel for the City of Anaheim, 1000 Sunset Boule-
vard, Los Angeles, explained if the deed for the Jones property was accepted,
no further action was necessary relative to the Jones property. However, a
resolution was still being requested with respect to the Janaco and Ambuehl
properties.
The Mayor asked if any representatives were present relative to the Janaco or
Ambuehl properties. No one was present. He then asked if anyone wished to
speak on either of the properties. There being no response, he closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-268 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated April 4, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-268: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. (Janaco-Peralta Hills)
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-268 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-269 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated April 4, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-269: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. (Ambuehl)
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-269 duly passed and adopted.
78-518
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the deed from
Mr. and Mrs. Harold R. Jones was accepted. MOTION CARRIED.
173: PUBLIC HEARING - PLAZA TRANSPORTATION - APPLICATION FOR JITNEY SERVICE:
Application submitted by Plaza Transportation Company for a permit to operate
a jitney service to and from the Anaheim Plaza Shopping Center in accordance
with Anaheim Municipal Code Section 4.80.
The City Clerk announced that 4 letters and 1 petition in favor of the permit
and 1 letter in opposition had been received.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and wished to
speak.
Mr. Mike Parish, 900 South Bruce Street, representing Plaza Transportation,
answered questions posed by the Council as follows: no stops would be made
along the route outside of those stipulated as designated stops (see Anaheim
Plaza Express Route Exhibit on file in the City Clerk's Office); trips would
occur approximately every 30 minutes over the seven and one-half mile round
trip route; they did plan to use the freeway.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition:
the following persons spoke in favor of granting the application for a permit
for the below listed reasons or gave related comments: Mr. Chris Roscoe,
General Manager of Anaheim Plaza, (1) the proposed service would bring the
tourists and conventioneers directly into the shopping center; (2) they would
provide a variety of shows and promotions at the Plaza from time to time, and
would also disseminate information to visitors through advertising; (3) the
direct route service to the Plaza would be readily accessible to major hotels
and motels; (4) on numerous occasions, he heard people say they had a difficult
time getting to the Plaza.
Nancy E. Brecks, Marketing Director, Anaheim Plaza Merchants Association: (1)
the information boards at Anaheim Convention Center would be used to promote the
new service. As well, a direct phone line by the board would be available to .
Anaheim Plaza giving a recording with Plaza Transportation information as well as
OCTD information; (2) advertising would also be accomplished through their brochure,
and people in the hotels would assist by informing those who asked where they could
shop in the City that direct transportation service was available to Anaheim Plaza;
(3) conventioneers were usually on a tight time schedule and the new service would
provide easy accessibility and convenience without having to rely on public transpor-
tation; (4) she emphasized that the tourist and convention dollars should be kept
in Anaheim; (5) they had previously worked with the Visitor's and Convention Center
Bureau (V&C).
Gary L. Lundstrom, General Manager of Robinson's Department Store, (1) by way of
Plaza Transportation Company, they were trying to attract the additional business
of both the conventioneer and the tourist to the shopping center; (2) he personally
had received complaints from customers visiting Anaheim regarding the difficulty ~__~
and inaccessibilty of arriving at Anaheim Plaza through existing transportation;
(3) he was interested in establishing the best type of customer relations and service
not only for Robinson's, but also the Anaheim Plaza customer; (4) they had numerous
discussions with Mr. Bill Snyder of the V&C who assured 100 percent support if
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-51 9
some type of transportation program could be developed other than that presently
existing; (5) they had chairs in their store for people waiting for Yellow Cab, and
he had seen some of their customers waiting 45 minutes when Robinson's had made the
call for the cab.
Steve Mohler, 410 South Baker (Anaheim Sheraton employee for 5 years and pre-
viously at Disneyland Hotel), (1) he was aware of the problems confronting
visitors to Anaheim, and every day he was faced with complaints relative to
lack of transportation to Anaheim Plaza or other shopping centers; (2) there
was usually a 15-minute to 1-hour wait for Yellow Cab. Just today he had
called a cab from the Sheraton and it did not arrive for 45 minutes. Further,
the driver did not want to take the fare after he found out it was only to
Anaheim Plaza; (3) they would appreciate something more convenient because
those who worked at the hotels were usually the ones who received the complaints.
Mr. Chuck Cooper, owner of Hickory Farms, Anaheim Plaza, (1) since he worked
out on the floor of his store, he also heard firsthand remarks from people
stating the difficulty they had getting to the Plaza, and then having to wait
for transportation to get back to their hotels or motels.
Mrs. Bobbie Ryan, Jean Marie and Jean Ryan, Anaheim Plaza (18 years), (1) the
transportation issue had been a formidable one and every time they thought they
had a solution, nothing materialized; (2) the Visitor and Convention Bureau would
support their efforts through the placement of brochures at hospitality tables
on the condition that the Plaza could provide transportation; (3) a schedule on
available public transportation was included in their brochures, as Anaheim had
spent time, energy and ingenuity in bringing people from out of state into the
City. This seemed foolish not to capitalize on the situation and attempt to keep
tax dollars in Anaheim.
The 'following people spoke in opposition to the granting of the permit for the
below listed reasons or gave related comments: Manuel Lozano (son) Lozano
Limousine Taxicab Service, 621 Chippewa #158, (1) he read aloud from a letter
dated April 22, 1978, already submitted to the Council (on file in the City
Clerk's Office), the 4 basic reasons for their opposition to the granting of
a permit to Plaza Transportation Company.
Manuel Lozano (father), General Manager, Lozano Limousine Tours and Taxicab
Service, (1) they were the best promoters of the Anaheim Plaza, and recommended
it to every person who utilized their service; (2) they did not get a great deal
of business from the Center, and he waited some 20 or 30 minutes in front of the
Broadway or Robinson's in his cab without servicing a customer; (3) he had been
in business for over 3 months and none of the people in the Center had approached
him to ask for help; (4) relative to the Sheraton Anaheim, he had picked up
approximately 3 or 4 passengers from that hotel in 3 months. They did not want
to help him even though he had personally gone to the hotel and offered his services;
(5) adequate transportation service was now being provided through his cab and
limousine service, Yellow Cab, OCTD and the RTD; (6) he believed the new service,
if allowed, would be detrimental to the services he provided.
Pat Bayley,~ 801 North Loara, Apartment 224, (I) as a private citizen, she was
dependent upon public transportation. She preferred not to use taxicabs because
when she wanted to go somewhere, she wanted to be there at specific times; (2)
presently Anaheim Plaza was the focal point for her in order to utilize the OCTD
and since she lived only 2 blocks away, wanted to be able to continue to make
78-520
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 19.~8~ 1:30 P.M.
transportation connections from that point; (3) if the Plaza started their own
service, she was concerned with the possibility that it would discourage OCTD
from remaining there.
Mike Valen, 304 Katella Way, Town Tour Fun Bus Company, explained that approxi-
mately 10 years ago they operated under the ordinance of Anaheim Jitney and
traveled to Anaheim Plaza for several years, but the service died for lack of
support. Although he conceded that perhaps there was a need, his concern was
not that the applicant wished to go to Anaheim Plaza, but that under the Jitney
Ordinance, they could pick-up and drop-off within a certain area, and were asking
to provide service around the Disneyland complex. He stated this would affect
them greatly because they had been servicing the Disneyland area for the last 10
years as well as the Convention Center and Anaheim Stadium. Further, they had
been able to keep their fares down to 35 cents all during that period by operating
efficiently and increasing their volume. He urged the Council, if they did approve
the permit, that some controls be placed on it to the degree that they (Plaza
Transportation) could not pick up at hotels and deliver to other hotels or inside
Disneyland or the Convention Center. Plaza Transportation could increase the size
of their vans to large buses, and that could have an extremely damaging effect on
the service that Town Tour provided. He did not have any objection to their going
to Anaheim Plaza, but reiterated that stringent controls should be placed upon the
service such as specific routes they would travel, how they would pick up, where
they could pick up, and how they would deliver people.
In concluding and in answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Valen stated that he had
met with people from Anaheim Plaza although not with any of those present today.
At the time, they were not given any support even relative to advertising, and
Town Tour was going directly to the Plaza. As a result, they lost a considerable
amount of money. He emphasized if no support was given by the Plaza through adver-
tising, the new service would not survive.
Mr. Larry Slagle, Yellow Cab Company, 1619 East Lincoln, stated that he was speaking
in opposition primarily because outside of a major convention, the transportation
needs of the community were well served. During conventions they provided more
than 100 trips a day to the shopping center. On occasions, people did have to'wait,
and when the wait was excessive, there was a reason. Mr. Slagle further stated
that the new service would have an impact on other transportation systems. There
would a cormnunity service that would overlay the existing types of service, Town
Tour Fun Bus, Lozano Cab, and Yellow Cab. Further, with those layers upon each
other, it would have an impact on rates and trying to keep them down.
In concluding, Mr. Slagle stated that he was also concerned, as was Mr. Valen,
that the introduction of the proposed service would tend to expand later on when
the specific use was found to be insufficient to support the system. If expanded
into other areas, it would then pose serious problems to existing transportation.
He reiterated his opposition to the new service.
Mr. Ken Smart, Counsel for the OCTD Board of Directors, explained that the Board
had not taken any action on the present matter and their next meeting was scheduled ' ~---
for May 15, 1978. Based on previous actions in similar matters however he could
represent the District's stand. There was a provision that OCTD may not initiate
any new transit services if there was a possibility of competing with existing
transit services. If, in fact, there was that possibility, the District was obli-
gated to purchase the existing company prior to initiating the new service. Their
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-521
concern revolved around the fact that the Board adopted new service for West Central
Anaheim involving community fixed route service (Easy Rider), and in non-peak hours
Dial-a-Ride Service. One of their planners was present to give the details on those
routes to be implemented in September, and the main terminus of the service was
Anaheim Plaza. If authority to operate was granted to Plaza Transportaion Service
today, then possibly the initiation of service in September would be enjoined or
prevented until such time as OCTD purchased the new service. They could be in
business for only 3 months and approach the OCTD stating they could not start
their new bus service until their company (Plaza Transportation) was purchased
by the OCTD.
Mr. Smart continued that he did not believe that was the intent of Plaza Transpor-
tation, but prior to the meeting when he presented a proposed waiver to them, since
they were not familiar with the matters involved, made a decision not to execute
such a waiver. The purpose of the waiver was to preclude the new company from sub-
sequently approaching OCTD asking to be purchased by them. Mr. Smart viewed the
matter as a serious threat to the start of any new service. He further explained
that such waivers had been executed previously by applicants such as Town Tour Fun
Bus and other private carriers. He believed the position of the Transit District
to be one of opposition, but if the Council did grant the permit, as a condition
of that approval, Plaza Transportation be required to execute the waiver. He also
confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that if the waiver was executed, the Transit
District would not be in opposition to the granting of a permit.
Mr. Louis Polin, Service Planning, OCTD, then briefed the Council on the proposed
route system to be initiated in September involving 6 routes, 5 of which focused
at Anaheim Plaza. He also explained for Mayor Seymour that there was some degree
of overlap as to what was being proposed by Plaza Transportation in that if he
(Seymour) were a visitor staying at Disneyland, he could not go directly to Anaheim
Plaza utilizing the OCTD although it would only take approximately 15 minutes to
get there. As well, Dial-a-Ride Service would also be available to the typical
visitor and conventioneer and a vehicle would be dispatched within 20 to 30 minutes
after calling for the service. They would then be taken to Anaheim Plaza or any
other destination in Anaheim during off-peak hours.
Further discussion followed between Mr. Slagle and the Council revolving around
the importance of the promotional aspect by the shopping center for the type of
transportation proposed.
Mr. Lundstrom, in his closing remarks, stated that the growth of the convention
business in the past 10 years escalated from 50,000 to 500,000 thus there was now
a need that did not exist approximately 5 years prior at the time Town Tour Fun
Bus offered such service. Realtive to Mrs. Bayley's concern, their attempt was
to draw the conventioneers and visitors to Anaheim to the Center, but not to the
detriment of Anaheim residents. They were not interested in competing on the
transportation level, but only to develop their business geared toward the visitor
and convention business strictly and nothing more. They felt very strongly about
developing their business and would seek it aggressively and support Plaza Trans-
portation with advertising.
In summation, Mr. Parish stated that he did not consider those opposed to the
granting of the permit to be competitors. Mr. Lozano's service only had 2 or 3
cabs, and ~hey could not possibly handle the number of people to be serviced. He
did not believe they had approached the hotels and given them phone numbers to
call. Anaheim was filled with conventioneers 65 to 75 percent of the time on a
78-522
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
year-round basis, and he did not feel there was enough cab service available
for the need. Relative to competing rate-wise, they would not be a subsidized
transportation system such as OCTD, and thus it would be impossible to compete
with such rates.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Parish stated he was not at all familiar
with the waiver presented to him by Mr. Smart just 5 minutes before the meeting.
He now understood what was required by law, and he would not object to signing
the waiver.
Mr. Parish also clarified that they did plan to make it plain on their vehicle
that they were servicing the shopping center, that they presently had one vehicle,
but if business proved to be good, they did plan to expand the route and add more
vehicles but not expand the stops. Their sole and only purpose was to pick up
at the specified hotels and go to and from the shopping center.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Parish if he proposed to have additional stops other
than those on the map submitted.
Mr. Parish stated that was true, but also he would like to add other stops if he
could. Councilman Overholt thereupon stated that his answer to Councilwoman
Kmywood was then not accurate because it was the intent to develop other stop
points.
Mr. Parish clarified if the demand was apparent, he would like to add other stops
relative to local hotels. He further clarified for the Mayor that it was not his
intention to pick someone up, for example at Disneyland Hotel, and drop them off
at the Grand Hotel, but that pick-up and drop-off would be at point' of origin--
that is, pick-up would be made from a hotel and the passenger delivered to Anaheim
Plaza and then back to the hotel if they wished.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had received personal complaints
a number of times relative to the difficulty in getting to the shopping center'
when only a couple of hours was available. She favored the proposal and believed
it could be a catalyst in attracting some of the 13 million people that visited
the area yearly. She suggested that it be called The Plaza Shopping Center Jitney,
and that the greatest amount of publicity possible be sought. The Plaza had all
of the same conveniences as the larger shopping centers, but within a smaller area.
She maintained the proposal would be of benefit to the City, and thereupon moved
to approve the application for permit by the Plaza Transportation Company subject
to the following stipulations and further based upon the below listed findings:
that a waiver be signed stating that the OCTD would not be responsible to buy out
the company as explained by Mr. Smart; assurance that there would be no other
pick-up or delivery other than from hotel to Plaza and from Plaza back to hotel;
that the permit be granted on a one-year basis to ascertain its effectiveness;
that the bond or policy of insurance hereinafter required has been furnished,
and that the same is in the form required, and that the surety thereon is approved
by the City Council; that the proposed motor vehicles are adequate and safe and
are equipped as herein required; that the applicant is of good moral character
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-523
and has complied with all of the terms and conditions of Chapter 4.80.040 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code and is competent to operate the jitney service; that
the public convenience or necessity requires the operation of such jitney service;
that the name, monogram or insignia to be used on the motor vehicles is not in
conflict with and does not imitate any other name, monogram or insignia used by
any other person, heretofore licensed by the City Council, in such manner as to
be misleading or tend to deceive or defraud the public; that the schedule of
rates or fares proposed to be charged are fair and reasonable; the granting of
said permit shall constitute the approval of the City Council of the proposed
schedule of rates and proposed routes. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Mayor stated that although he recognized the expressed con-
cern of other carriers, he believed the proposed service to be specialized. If the
merchants believed in it and were willing to support it, as well as the Center, it
would mean that cash revenues would remain in Anaheim other than going to other
cities. He was most supportive and the conditions included in the motion assured
to the greatest degree that they would not be creating another layer watering down
other transportation services. He also asked to be included in the motion
that the request meet the criteria as set forth in Ordinance 4.80.040 dealing
with the issuance of such a permit. Councilwoman Kaywood agreed to the addition.
Councilman Kott asked the City Attorney if, in his opinion, having the applicant
agree to signing a waiver was within the legal purview of the City of Anaheim
as a condition.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the stipulations proposed would be a condition precedent
to the granting of the permit, and under those circumstances, if the Council con-
sidered those to be important, it would be a legal requirement.
Councilman Kott stated he would support the motion because it would benefit the
City, and considered the one year provision very desirable. As he emphasized
earlier however it was important for the ownership and management of the Center
itself to become involved by providing money, phones or whatever was necessary
in promoting the service because they had a responsibility to the tenants in
the Center.
Councilman Roth stated that he was opposed to granting the permit, and pointed
out that the brochure published by Anaheim Plaza, which was only 4 minutes away
from Disneyland, did not include the phone number of Yellow Cab or the 0CTD.
As well, he considered Mr. Valen to be an astute businessman, and if he felt
the need to get to Anaheim Plaza was so great, he would have capitalized on the
situation.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the motion for the following
reasons: (1) he did not consider the proposed Plaza Transportation Company Jitney
service to be competitive with a taxicab service or the 0CTD. They were not price
competitive because rates differed greatly. Plaza Transportation was providing an
additional specialized transportation system offering the opportunity for someone
to go to the shopping center and perhaps return by cab. His concern was that the
success or failure of the plan was dependent upon whether or not the Merchants
Association would stand behind the plan. Otherwise, he did not believe it could
survive 90 days unless it received that strong report. He maintained that the
ownership cr management of the company was not the one to turn to for such support,
but the Me~chants Association, and if they were willing to back the proposal to the
optimum, everyone would be pleased and would profit from the results.
78-524
.C~ty~Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including the 4 conditions as artic-
ulated. Councilman Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1807: Application by Mr. and Mrs
Michael Garan and Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Armstrong, to permit a retail purchasing
service facility on ML zoned property located at 1290 Sunshine Way.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-49, reported that
the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the
Section 3.01, Class 1, 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, and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1807
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee difference between industrial and commercial use at consisting of
$333 per 1000 square feet of building or fraction thereof, prior to the com-
mencement of the activity authorized under this resolution (issuance of a
business license) or within a period of one year from the date hereof, which-
ever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 3.
3. That the use is granted for a two-year period, at which time an extension
may be granted following review and approval by the Planning Commission if it
is determined that the use is being conducted in the manner represented by the
petitioner and specified in the "findings" of this resolution and if it is
determined that the use has not had a detrimental affect on the surrounding area.
4. That the showroom and display area will only be used to display the types
of merchandise available to only the members of the proposed retail purchasing
service and that no merchandise shall be sold from the premises.
5. That the use will not be open to the general public and there shall be no
on-site advertising to the general public nor special "sales" to attract retail
customers.
Review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by the City Council as
a result of concerns expressed by Mr. Larry Sierk, Executive Vice President of
the Chamber of Commerce, in his letter dated March 28, 1978, 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.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. George Geesee, Chairman of the Industrial Committee of the Anaheim Chamber
of Commerce, 15441 E1 Cey Circle, Irvine, explained that one of the primary
objectives of his 20-member committee was to preserve the integrity of the
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 197.8~ 1:30 P.M.
78-525
industrial zoning in the City of Anaheim. However, they did not take the
opportunity to discuss the subject application at the Planning Commission, and
when it came before his committee, it was one of those instances where they
"rubber stamped" it in opposition simply because it fell into the usual criteria.
Thus, he was at the meeting today not in opposition, but in support. They had
the opportunity in the interim to visit the facility and met the principals of
the business. He reiterated that the Chamber of Commerce was not opposed to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1807.
Mr. Geesee continued however that they did feel there was a problem relative to
zoning in Anaheim. They had reviewed a number of similar situations and believed
that both the Planning Commission and the City Council could be spared a great deal
of time relative to CUP activity by developing some alternate type of zoning
proposal. The Chamber was developing a key blue ribbon committee that would be
working with City Planning staff, and they wanted to have the support of the Council
in that planning activity. They believed there was a need in industrial zoning for
businesses that did not quite fit since there was a great deal of prime industrial
land adjacent to good public access. Subsequently developers would more realistically
develop their land.
The Mayor encouraged Mr. Geesee to pursue discussions with the Planning Depart-
ment and the Planning Commission.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 1, 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 Resolution No. 78R-270 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1807. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-270: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1807.
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-270 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that if a similar situation occurred in the
future, the Chamber communicate immediately with the City in order to preclude
the time and effort required to set a matter for a public hearing.
78-526
CitM Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
164: DECLARING NO BIDS AND SUBSEQUENT CALL FOR BIDS - LA PALMA AVENUE AND LAKEVIEW
AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-271,
78R-272, 78R-276, and 78R-277 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-271: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THERE WERE NO BIDS RECEIVED ON THE LA PALMA AVENUE
SEWER IMPROVEMENT EAST OF BLUE GUM STREET, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-272: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THERE WERE NO BIDS RECEIVED ON THE LAKEVIEW AVENUE
SEWER IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-276: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA AVENUE SEWER IMPROVE-
MENT, E/O BLUE GUM STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000;
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CON-
STRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATION, 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.)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-277: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LAKEVIEW AVENUE SEWER IMPROVE-
MENT 236 FEET NORTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE TO 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.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The M~yor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-271, 78R-272, 78R-276 and 78R-277 duly
passed and adopted.
114: TEAM APPROACH PROGRAM TO HANDLE CITY MATTERS: Mayor Seymour referred to
his plan previously distributed to the Council and explained that he would
appreciate the Council's enforcement of it on a trial basis with the provision
that it could be modified or eliminated in the future. He thereupon moved that
the concept be adopted as proposed in his memorandum of April 27, 1978. Council-
man Kott seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that her understanding was, rather than all the depart
ments, they were just going to be involved with existing boards and connnissions.
She thought that to be a good idea, but was concerned with the fact that the Budget
was also included for which no board or commission existed, and thus asked that
that item be removed from the proposed program. She otherwise would be opposed
if the Budget was also included.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-527
Councilman Roth spoke to the matter and first stated that the plan contained some
excellent points, but as he explained previously at the Council-Manager-Department
Head meeting last week, he had problems with it. His concerns reverted back to
past performances of steering committees in 1974 upon which he elaborated and
specifically revolved around the fact that although he tried to get information
relative to the meetings held, he was unable to do so. While he believed that
increased communications in the City would be of assistance, there was insufficient
justification for him to support a steering committee approach because he believed
it would raise more problems and questions than any benefit to be gained.
The Mayor pointed out that the Council would be kept informed through having each
Council person involved in a meeting to report weekly on any activities that may
have taken place during that week.
Councilman Roth stated that he felt it was the full Council's responsibility to be
involved in City matters, and any board or commission who wanted the Council's
attention was accommodated. From his standpoint, he was available 7 days a week.
The Mayor emphasized the thrust of his plan was to get the Council out of a reactionary
mode into an action role, and he did not want to wait until a board or commission
suggested a meeting.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was supportive of the plan, but was also mindful
of Councilman Roth's reservation as articulated. However, he felt that no one was
going to take his one out of five votes away from him by the proposed concept, and
he would have an opportunity to express his concern every Tuesday. He wanted to
see the concept tried with the reservation that there be constant monitoring and
if it was not working, they could try something else. He was concerned that Council-
woman Kaywood considered the area of the Budget to be out of tune with the other
areas and suggested that some consideration be given to removing that item.
Councilman Kott was also supportive of the concept, especially with its loose arrange-
ment and informality. He pointed out that it was not a matter of two people making
a decision, but rather of bringing an issue back to the full Council. The two
liaison people would merely be transmitters for any particular entity that might be
of concern to a department head. He viewed the concept as a positive move which
would create a better environment.
Mayor Seymour stated he was not interested in pursuing the concept without
as much support as possible. He sensed there would be four votes for the
concept if the Budget was removed at this time, but he did not want to em-
bark on a positive team effort approach if he did not have a solid four votes.
He did not have any problem eliminating the Budget aspect, and t-hus it would
be the full Council's responsibility to work on it in the current Budget
session since it was already underway. If the concept worked well however
and a majority of the Council agreed, it could be included in the concept the
next fiscal year. He emphasized he wanted the responsibility of the Mayor's
Office shared as broadly as possible.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would prefer instead to have more Council/
Management seminars every 6 or 8 weeks because she believed them to be an
excellent vehicle and a more efficient way to go since everyone was present
to hear and see the same thing, thus eliminating the need for reporting to
78-528
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
anyone else. Further, she had a real concern relative to the non-interference
clause in the City Charter, and she wanted to be certain it was not violated,
nor did she want to see any problems created between department heads which
would cause trouble or disruption in the normal lines of communication.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Councilman Roth wherein Council-
man Roth, even though he voted "no" to the concept, stated that he would cooperate
and attend meetings in the area in which he was assigned, but with the qualifica-
tion that such meetings be held in strict accord with the Brown Act. He would
not be present at meetings where more than 2 Council people would be present
and without the press being properly notified.
The Mayor stated that the intent was not to get a majority of the Council at the
liaison meetings, and he then asked the City Attorney to clarify the situation
relative to the Brown Act.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the Brown Act provided that if a majority of
the Council met and made decisions, it would be in violation of the Act unless
proper notice had been given that it was a City Council meeting. However, mere
attendance without any decision making or consideration being given would not
violate the Act. He stated however that great caution would have to be exercised.
He did not see any intent to violate the Brown Act in the Mayor's memorandum
setting guidelines for the team approach concept.
123/180: AUDIT REPORT OF MIKEN ASSOCIATES INC. - WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM
PROGRAM: (continuance to May 9, 1978, requested by staff) Councilman Kott
referred to the report dated February 28, 1978, wherein Mr. Kenneth Savage
was noted as having performed an audit relative to liability claims as admin-
istered by Carl Warren. He was under the impression that services were per-
formed that he was not authorized to do since the authorization was related
to Workers' Compensation and not third party claims.
Mr. Talley explained that Mr. Savage did work two days on the Workers' Compensation
Claim Audit and third party claims, and the Finance Director requested that some
work be performed in that area. The work was performed and billed in accordance
with the contract and at the City's request he did some work in addition for which
he did not charge the City.
Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, confirmed that Mr. Savage did perform
the additional work at no charge as long as formal report was not requested
of him. He did so at his (Ferrone's) request wherein he asked Mr. Savage if
he would be willing to look at a few cases to insure that they were being
processed properly and in a timely fashion.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration
of the Audit Report of Miken Associates, Inc. on the Workers' Compensation Claim
Program was continued to May 9, 1978, as requested by staff, with Mr. Savage to
be asked to come prepared to speak to the report. MOTION CARRIED.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
150: TRANSITION OF PARK CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM INTO PARK REHABILITATION AND
78-529
MAINYgNANCE PROGRAMS: City Manager Talley stated that staff's recommendation
on the matter remained the same (see minutes of April 25, 1978 and memorandum
dated April 20, 1978). They had exhausted all alternatives, and in order to
pursue any other courses than that recommended by the Director of Parks, Recrea-
tion and the Arts, would entail additional General Funds beyond those contemplated.
Mr. John O'Malley, staff representative of the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association
(AMEA), explained that they had an opportunity during the one week's continuance to
discuss the alternatives employees presented with Mr. Ruth and Personnel Director
McRae who gave them excellent and serious consideration to their argument. They
looked into the area of "share the work"--deletion of 2 of the 3 construction
crews, thus there would be adequate work for 1 crew for 2 years. They suggested
instead of 1 crew for 3 years that 3 crews be employed for 6, 8 or 10 months.
That idea did not seem unreasonable; however, after evaluating it with the Depart-
ment and Personnel, it was ascertained that it would probably not work out well
so that issue was put aside.
Another alternative explored was to accelerate the work into next year's budget;
fund the money now so that 3 crews would have enough work to continue,'but that
suggestion also had its problems.
The next suggestion was to "Y" rate the employees who were going to be demoted.
This presented many problems with the possibility of setting dangerous precedents,
and as well, the rules did not allow for such an alternative.
Another matter that was explored revolved around the CETA versus labor issue which
was discussed with the Department. There were 20 CETA positions in the Department,
16 of which were filled. After meeting again with the employees and explaining
the non-viability of the aforementioned issues, AMEA subsequently met with Messrs.
Ruth and McRae and explained what they had found to be the real concern in the field
was the fact that permanent employees in the Department would be moved out, but
CETA employees would remain. Even though the employees accepted the idea that there
were going to be cutbacks, they felt it was a violation of the assurance the C~ty had
given them under the CETA II acceptance program. They presented that concern to
Mr. Ruth and Personnel and explained they could not agree with the proposal when
CETA people would remain. It was true that the 4 laborers would not be leaving the
employment of the City, and there would be no diminution of the maintenance effort,
the fact remained that there would be 4 less positions with CETA employees remaining
while 4 permanent positions would be eliminated from the Department. Since the
concern was so great, they offered the following: (1) it was important to make
clear that they could not agree with the proposal unless CETA people were also
eliminated; (2) they recommended the use of the supportive money'contributed by
the City for the 16 CETA people amounting to approximately $55,000 to maintain
the permanent employees in that Department.
Discussion followed on the latter alternative between Mayor Seymour and Mr. O'Malley
wherein it was revealed upon questioning by the Mayor that the same service level
to citizens could not be maintained if the 4 permanent positions remained in the
Department and the 16 CETA positions eliminated.
78-5 30
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he empathized with the elimination of CETA positions
because they were training positions temporary in nature and Federally funded.
He would be inclined to go along with the concept, but with the assurance that
(1) the same level of service would be delivered to the citizens, and (2) that
it would not cost any more money.
Mr. O'Malley reiterated that it could not be done and that they did not have a
way of doing so.
After further discussion between the Mayor and Mr. O'Malley relative to another
possible alternative which in the final analysis was not considered viable, Council-
woman Kaywood clarified that the proposal, in fact, did not include any actual
layoffs, but reassignments to other Departments at a lesser rate of pay. Mr.
O'Malley stated that no actual layoffs from the City were involved, but from the
Department, however, at the same rate of pay, and no one was being fired.
Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts, stated that in his
21 years in the business, the present matter was one of the most difficult decisions
that he had to address, and they had explored every alternative possible. He stated
further that if the Council agreed to the concept proposed, only 3 people would be
involved because one employee had submitted his request to retire effective June 30,
1978. Thus, only 3 people would have to be reassigned outside of the Department.
They were also provided with first right of refusal, whereas if any positions
opened up in his Department, those 3 people would be given the first opportunity
to go back to the Department. It had been a very difficult situation for all con-
cerned, but it was his opinion they had made the best of the situation.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
approved in concept the proposal to phase out the park construction operation and
to establish a limited program of park rehabilitation. MOTION CARRIED.
147: COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
NOS. 2 AND 3 AND THE SARFPA: (continued from April 25, 1978) On motion by Council-
man Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Councilman Roth was appointed to serve as
the Alternate to Mayor John Seymour on the Boards of Directors of County Sanitmtion
District Nos. 2 and 3.
Further, on motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Councilman
Roth was designated the City's representative to the Santa Ana River Flood Protec-
tion Agency. MOTION CARRIED.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTS: (Account No.
50-4870-622-55-6994) Councilman Roth first wanted to know why 47 lamps were out
on Canyon Rim and Nohl Ranch Roads, and Councilwoman Kaywood asked if replacement of
the incandescent lamps would be with mercury vapor lamps, thus conserving energy
and at a lower cost.
Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, explained that relative to the 47
lights, during the rains some of the photo cells burned out and these would be
replaced. As well, the incandescent lamps would be replaced with mercury vapor
as recommended by the City Engineer.
City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-531
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-273 for adoption, awarding a contract to
the low bidder in accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated April 25, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-273: 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
IMPROVEMENT: REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 50-4870-622-55-6994. (Smith Electric
Supply, $17,424)
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-273 duly passed and adopted.
175: RECOMMENDATION - PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - PALO VERDE PROJECT UNITS 4 AND 5:
A report was received from the Board's Secretary recommending approval of the
Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 CEQA Agreement.
Councilman Kott first gave the historical background on Proposition A, the
$150 million bond issue approved by the Anaheim electorate in November, 1975, on
the promise of a 25 percent savings in electrical generation in the mid 1980s.
He stated the various projects in which the Utilities Department had become in-
volved utilizing those funds and the approximate amount thus far expended, leaving
a balance of approximately $80 million yet uncommitted. However, if the Sundesert
Project materialized, that would require another $140 million and the Palo Verde
Project another $55 million leaving a shortage of $115 million. Although he
realized the thrust and goodness of intentions, he maintained that all would agree
a risk was involved, and he did not want to risk the taxpayers money relative to the
matter.
There were other concerns specifically regarding the hydro-power that the City
was to acquire from the State of Washington. He asked Mr. Hoyt if that attempt
had been unsuccessful.
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, stated that they had executed agreements with
the State of California, and the Bonneville Power Administration-had a contract in
final form enroute to the City. There was a problem with Southern California Edison
in providing transmission service from the midway substation and their not recognizing
the City's agreement with the State of California. Mr. Hoyt was still hopeful that
the matter would come to positive fruition.
Councilman Kott stated that basically while the intent was admirable and he had no
quarrel with the distribution of the electricity, since the past activity of the
scheme to do so had proven to be unreliable, he reiterated he was not willing to
risk taxpayers money.
78-532
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt then explained that with regard to the $150 million Proposition A Bond
issue, $18.5 million worth of bonds had been sold, a partial pre-payment of
$12.5 million had gone to Nevada Power, $6 million worth of bonds had been sold
for studies and distribution system improvements, $1.5 million for distribution
improvements, $4.5 million earmarked for studies with under $2 million of that
portion still remaining. Of this $131.5 million authorized but unsold, approxi-
mately $31 million was effectively committed to San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Stations 2 and 3 (see minutes of October 25, 1977) with execution of the agreement
dependent on the outcome of the investment tax credit matter (see minutes of
October 25, 1977). Mr. Hoyt then further elaborated on the status of some of
the pending projects. He stated at one point that if both the Sundesert Project
(1 unit only) and the Palo Verde Project were approved, they would be involved in
an additional revenue bond election for generation facilities. He emphasized
the importance of participating in studies otherwise there could be no participa-
tion in the projects and enormous amounts of money had been invested in those
projects. If a project failed, the money invested would be lost; if a project
were to move ahead without Anaheim, the money invested would be refunded by the
remaining participants.
Mayor Seymour stated that the action under consideration as well as other such
actions taken relative to the expenditure of that bond issue money (Proposition A)
was well within the purview of that bond election and supported by the City
Attorney each time. It was his understanding and interpretation that by the
authority granted to the Council by over two-thirds of the voters in the City,
that they were vested with the power and the responsibility to investigate areas
of potential prospects for generation. He did not know how it was possible to
go to the voters, which he would require, and ask for approval for an additional
bond issue without dealing with all the facts involved. That could not be done
without performing adequate research, and he did not know of any way to do that
without spending money.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-274 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated April 21, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-274: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE'IM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF LOS ANGELES,
BURBANK, GLENDALE, PASADENA, AND RIVERSIDE IN CONNECTION WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND AUTHORIZING THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Units 4 and 5).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-274 duly passed and adopted.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-533
Further, the City Council appointed the Utilities Director to the Management
Committee in accordance with Section 7 of the Agreement; and authorized the
Utilities Director to appoint Alternate Representatives to the Management
Committee or other committees which may be established by the Management
Committee.
167: CALCOMP REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION ON CORONADO STREET:
Mr. Steve Robinson, Manager of Security and Safety, Calcomp, 1270 North Kraemer,
briefed the Council on his letter dated March 27, 1978, previously submitted to
the Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office). It outlined the details of their
request as well as the chronological summation of efforts which had thus far taken
place, basically involving Calcomp discussion and/or written communications with
the Traffic Engineer. The final recommendation made by the City Engineer
in his memorandum April 27, 1978, was that the City not participate in the
cost of installation or maintenance of the single-user signal proposed. Cal-
comp had expressed their reluctance to bear the entire $16,000 cost. Mr.
Robinson stated that although he did not have the authority to authorize
expenditures over $500, expressed his Company's feeling that sharing the ex-
pense of 50 percent of the signal would be a reasonable one.
The Mayor questioned the Traffic Engineer and took issue with the statement
made in his report that if the subject installation was made as requested, the
signal modification required at Agate and Broadway would have to be reduced or
postponed. He knew for a fact that Mr. Singer's budget was approved without
his new proposal for additional funding subsequently approved by the Council
authorizing a developer fee for traffic signals.
Mr. Singer explained there was money available in the Signal Assessment Fund
which had been pre-programmed and that was a program that would be presented
to the Council at the next Budget. He pointed out that relative to the subject
request: (1) the signal was a single-user request and no other user was going
to avail themselves of the pedestrian crosswalk except Calcomp; (2) Calcomp
constructed the building prior to any traffic signal assessment and therefore
had not contributed anything to the Signal Assessment Fund; and (3) the only place
in the 1978-79 Budget to accommodate this installation would be to reduce or
postpone the signal modification required at the school crossing at Agate and
Broadway.
MOTION: Discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Singer wherein it was
revealed that $304,902 had thus far been collected in fiscal year 1977-78
through March under the new Traffic Signal Assessment Fee Schedule. Mr. Singer
explained however that the reason the assessment was established was to accomplish
the traffic signal plan amounting to $6 million over the next 5 years. They could
not hope to even approach that type of improvement under Gas Tax funds alone, and
the new assessment was a "shot in the arm." Further discussion followed revolving
around funding for signalization, at the conclusion of which, Mayor Seymour
moved that the City pay for one-half the cost of signalization as requested by
Calcomp with funds to be allocated from the Traffic Engineer's budget without
eliminating the signal modification at Agate and Broadway Street. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion for discussion.
78- 4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Upon questioning by Councilman Kott, Mr. Singer relayed the City's past experience
relative to requests similar to that of Calcomp. Councilman Roth commented that
he did not believe it to be unreasonable to have the employees walk approximately
one-half block down to the signal and back, and he was not supportive of the request.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated since it was a single purpose use for Calcomp, there
was no reason for the taxpayer to pick up any portion of the cost.
Mayor Seymour first pointed out other single purpose uses where signals had been
installed and then stated that he had strong feelings on the subject request in
that the Council in the past had not done enough to encourage the growth of clean
business and industry in the City. He maintained the attitude towards business
had to change. Councilwoman Kaywood did not agree that for $8,000, Calcomp would
feel that a disservice had been done to them.
A brief discussion followed wherein Mr. Singer clarified the situation as it
presently existed at the subject intersection and concluded that the alternative
to signalization or other costly alternatives was an unprotected crosswalk.
Councilman Kott stated that he appreciated the problem facing Calcomp and perhaps
a signal was the solution. He therefore favored Mayor Seymour's motion of a
50 percent participation, but with the addition that Calcomp be responsible for
the monthly maintenance cost of the signal.
Councilman Overholt stated his concern was that no adequate study had been made
of the need, and to take any positive action at present would be premature.
After further discussion, Mayor Seymour stated he would withdraw his motion
and thereupon recommended that Mr. Robinson discuss the matter further with the
management of the corporation to let them know the Council's feeling on the signal-
ization and subsequently, get together with the Traffic Engineer and come back
to the Council in two weeks.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request for
a traffic signal installation on Coronado Street was continued for two weeks.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (6:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:35 P.M.)
105: REQUEST FOR JOINT MEETING BY THE LIBRARY BOARD: By general Council consent,
a joint meeting of the City Council and the Library Board was set for May 10, 1978,
at 3:30 P.M., in the Central Library, as requested in a letter dated April 26, 1978,
from Elizabeth Schultz, Chairman of the Library Board.
105: HACMAC - PROGRESS OF COMMITTEE AND TERMS OF MEMBERS: Mrs. Jan Hall,
545 Tumbleweed Road, Secretary of HACMAC, referred to a letter dated April 19,
1978, the intent of which was to inform the Council that the one-year appoint-
ments to the HACMAC Committee would expire on May 30, 1978. Some members desired
78-535
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
to continue their service, and there were also some vacancies. At this point,
they needed direction from the Council relative to the continuity of HACMAC.
If all members were to be replaced, they would have to start all over and there
was a great deal to learn to get where the present committee was today. Discussion
then followed relative to the possibility of staggering terms for HACMAC members,
attendance records of various members, resignations, etc. At the conclusion,
Councilman Roth stated that at a meeting with department heads one week before,
he discussed the possibility of phasing out HACMAC, leaving the responsibilities
to the respective homeowners associations and then the blanket association such
as the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association (SACIA). Also, concern was expressed
last Tuesday relative to setting up a committee to study the Charter and what that
cost would be. He pointed out the only area that had HACMAC was the Santa Ana
Canyon while at' the same time, it was the only area where everyone was represented
by a homeowners association in their respective tracts. He was concerned over
HACMAC being another layer of government.
Mrs. Hall emphasized that SACIA had not had a meeting for 16 months nor had
collected dues for 2 years. Only one person was involved and no one else
was represented. The other master association was only taking in some of
the new tracts and other associations, such as the one she was in, was splintered
and very political and the drive overseeing more than their own area was gone.
Subsequently, everyone would be at City Hall instead of first having an organized
review and discussion. They (HACMAC Members) would not stop and would continue
on their own if necessary; however, at present they had the necessary credibility
that brought people together and also established good dialogue with developers
and ironed out a number of problems that would not otherwise be solved. The
Planning Commission also asked for their assistance and input. Their members
were volunteers who spent a tremendous amount of time to insure that the Canyon
would be better in its course of growth. HACMAC had been effective in its overview
of the entire area.
Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, the HACMAC Committee had done an excellent
job in the past and he looked forward to its continuing to do so. He emphasized
that in order to be effective, it was imperative to have a line of communication
with the Canyon and to listen to the voice of the leadership of the Canyon, cohsid-
ering all of the developments that had and would continue to take place. He believed
it vital that HACMAC be permitted to continue to exist. At the same time, they
could be even more efficient if there was more dialogue between the leadership of
the Planning Commission, HACMAC and joint work sessions with the Council with all
three participating. The Council Liaison Committee approach would provide the
vehicle for bringing about better communications in order for HACMAC to better
know what the Council was thinking. The involvement of the Chairman and Vice
Chairman of the Planning Commission would permit them to be more-closely attuned
and sensitive to the concerns of HACMAC, but at the same time HACMAC must have an
understanding where they were coming from. He specifically referred to a letter
HACMAC had sent to LAFCO relative to an annexation question. He stated it could
have been embarrassing to the Council, the body ultimately responsible to all citizens
of Anaheim. He was not pointing a finger at anyone, but was noting the incident
as an example of lack of communication which could lead to such a situation.
78-536
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 19~8~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Hall interjected that two of the members had a problem with that annexation
and that was how the Committee became involved. Unfortunately, the letter had
been sent out over her signature and she too was embarassed with it.
Councilman Seymour moved to extend the terms of all existing HACMAC Members for
an additional 90-day period and during the interim, a determination was to be
made at an appropriate meeting as to how terms should be staggered and appointments
made. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern relative to the
letter sent to LAFCO. She explained that HACMAC was an outgrowth of the former
Task Force, and the idea was to facilitate matters, not to become another layer
of government or more red tape. She therefore stated she never wanted to see
another communication with any outside organization that would circumvent the
Council.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Application for Solicitation of Charity
Funds submitted by the Advance Foundation, Inc., for telephone solicitation and
truck pick-up to further the education of mentally retarded children, for a
period of 60 days was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Application for Solicitation of Charity
Funds for the American Cancer Society, for a Bike-a-Thon to raise funds for the
American Cancer Society, May 13, 1978, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-38 - RESCHEDULING OF REHEARING: By general Council
consent, request by Mr. James Morgan to hold the rehearing on the subject reclass-
ification other than June 6 or 13, 1978, was approved and rehearing was set for
May 30, 1978, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, 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: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Jack Maurer for property damage purportedly sustained at
860 Granite Circle as a result of improper water drainage at South Junior High
School, on or about March 4, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Leonard Rangel Flores for personal injuries purportedly
sustained while operating an automobile in the 3400 block of Ball Road on or
about December 19, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of power burns (east side of West Street, north of Katella) on or
about March 15, 1978.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
78-52~
d. Claim submitted by David Keniston for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a golf cart accident at Anaheim Hills Golf Course on or about
March 27, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Norma Gibby for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a fall caused by a raised portion of sidewalk on Glenoaks on or
about March 11, 1978.
f. Claim submitted by Richard A. and Jacqueline P. Houston for property damages
purportedly sustained as a result of flooding of their residence on or about
December 28, 1977.
g. Claim submitted by Bernice O. Boak for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a slip and fall accident at the Convention Center on or about March 11,
1978.
h. Claim submitted by Alex Robertson Company for property damage purportedly
sustained as a result of earth movement at 380 Country Hill Road on or about
December 26, 1977.
i. Claim submitted by Donald R. Haring, Bonnie Hating and Darius Haring for
property damage purportedly sustained as a result of earth slippage at 380
Country Hill Road on or about December 25, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the PUC Application No. 57707, in the matter of the Application
of Southern California Edison Company for an Order authorizing it to sell an
undivided co-tenancy interest in its San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Units 2 and 3 and Common Facilities.
b. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of April 17, 1978.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of April 12, 1978.
d. 105: Public Library Board - Minutes of March 20, 1978.
e. 140: Monthly report for March 1978 - Public Library.
f. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of April 11, 1978.
g. 175: Monthly report for March 1978 - Utilities Department, Utilities
Field and Customer Service Divisions.
h. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of April 12, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
114: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 78-568: Declaring a portion of
Lakeview Avenue to be a County Highway during period of construction.
78-538
C~ty.~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood first emphasized that she wanted to be certain that the
subject resolution relative to the expansion of Lakeview referred to the north
and not the south. Mayor Seymour asked if the resolution had anything to do
with the extension of Lakeview as previously proposed.
City Engineer James Maddox stated that the resolution did not have anything to
do with the extension of Lakeview, but it referred only to the widening of the
bridge itself across Lakeview from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. He would be submitting
a report relative to the matter at the next meeting and it was already scheduled
on the agenda.
114: SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 2 - CLEAN WATER AND WATER CONSERVATION BOND ACT:
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council support Proposition 2 which had
undoubtedly been discussed at the Sanitation District meeting.
Councilman Roth recommended that the matter be held in abeyance for one week at
which time he would submit a report. The matter was thus continued for one week.
158: ACCEPTING DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No.
78R-275 for adoption, accepting certain deeds of easement. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-275: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Claude C. Keele, et ux.;
David M. King, et ux.; Edgar G. Davies, et ux.; Claude C. Keele, et ux.; Elton B.
Sahr, et ux.; Andrew Wickam Clay, et ux.; Ganahl Lumber Co., et al.; Grove Street
Associates, Mario Mercurio, et ux.; D & D Development Company, Sunburst Development
Inc.; William P. Bregder, et ux.; Jack R. Tester, et al.; Dow's Acreage; Michael J.
Niciforos)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL Mt~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-275 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held April 10, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-54 AND VARIANCE NO. 3005: Submitted by Bob and
Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, Billy L. and Patricia Wolfe, Oscar and Elizabeth Stankov,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 24-unit apartment
complex on property located at 119 South Magnolia Avenue with code waiver of
maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-65 and PC78-66
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-54 and Variance No. 3005, respectively, and
granted negative declaration status.
78-529
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
2. VARIANCE NO. 2740 (READV.): Sbumitted by Bland Huffman, to amend conditions
of approval to establish an 8-lot, multiple-family subdivision on RM-1200 zoned
property located at 401 South Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-67, granted Variance
No. 2740 (Readv.) and granted negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1811: Submitted by Robert and Esther J. Carlin,
to permit an automotive repair facility with accessory truck rental on CG zoned
property located at 1025 West Lincoln Avenue.
The subject application was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1812: Submitted by David Doering, to expand an
existing cocktail lounge and dance hall on CG zoned property located at 1203 West
Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-68, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1812 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1816: Submitted by Erman C. and Alice M.
Christofferson, to permit a contractor's storage yard on proposed ML zoned
property located at 1381 North Miller Street with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-69, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1816, in part, and granted negative declaration
status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1817: Submitted by Abraham and Esther Winter,
to permit the Kingsmen Drum and Bugle Corps administration office activity and
bingo facility on ML zoned property located at 1431, 1433 and 1435 South State
College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-70 granted Condi~
tional Use Permit No. 1817 for 5 years, with maximum of 250 patrons, and ratified
the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1818: Submitted by W. C. Taormina, et al, to permit
an auto detailing and storage facility on CG zoned property located at 301 North
Anaheim Boulevard, with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-71~ granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1818, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1819: Submitted by Max and Ruth B. Gatov, to
expand an existing car wash on proposed CL zoned property located at 2230 West
Lincoln Avenue with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-72, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1819 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
78-540
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1821: Submitted by Benjamin H. and Lee Satz, to
permit a veterinary clinic on CL zoned property located at 3414 West Ball Road, #K.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-73, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1821 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1708 - SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Mark R. Murphy
requesting approval of specific plans for a service station on property located
on the east side of Anaheim Hills Road, north of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved specific plans for Conditional Use Permit
No. 1708.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 323 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Gene J. Marinacci
requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 323 to establish an ambulance
service on property located on the east side of State College Boulevard, north of
Placentia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-74, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 323.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 555 - TERMINATION: Submitted by M. L. Barnes,
requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 555 to establish a service
station on property located at 550 South Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-75, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 555.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1810: Submitted by Donald E. Boucher, Robert L.
Wallis, Mary Ann Javelera, to permit a veterinary hospital on CL(SC) zoned
property located on the northwest side of Rio Grande Drive, southwest of
Fairmont Boulevard with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Councilman Kott requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on
the subject application.
EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted by Frederick
M. Culmann, requesting removal of 18 specimen trees on property located at
224 South Owens Drive.
Councilman Kott requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the
subject application.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 146: Circulation Element to the General Plan
(roadway widths, locations and City policies).
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the date, time
and place of the public hearing for General Plan Amendment No. 146 was set for
Tuesday, June 20, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber. MOTION CARRIED
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 27 19787 1:30 P.M.
78-541
ORDINANCE NOS. 3852 AND 3853: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3852 and
3853 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
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)
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. 3852 and 3853 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3854 THROUGH 3856: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3854
through 3856, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3854: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(23), RS-HS-22,000,
Tract No. 8560)
ORDINANCE NO. 3855: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-55(6), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3856: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-49, CL)
105: AVAILABILITY OF PARKING SPACES FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Councilwoman
Kaywood referred to a communication from Planning Commissioner Herbst requesting
the use of the Council parking spaces on the days of Planning Commission meetings
(every other Monday) if the Council had no objection. After a brief Council
discussion, approval of the use of three parking spaces for Planning Commissioners
on the day of their regular meetings was granted on a trial basis by general Council
consent.
148: LEAGUE OF CITIES, CONGRESS OF CITIES MEETING - SCAG ALTERNATIVES: Council-
woman Kaywood explained that on June 8, 1978, prior to their regular meeting, the
League of Cities was going to hold a Congress of Cities meeting, the purpose for
which would be to look into alternatives to SCAG. She suggested that Anaheim hold
their recommendations until that date with a report to be submitted to the Council
prior to that time for evaluation.
The Mayor asked Councilmen Roth and Kott if the suggestion was acceptable since the
original motion to look into alternatives was theirs. He added that it seemed
likely alternatives would be evolving at the June 8, 1978 Congress of Cities
meeting.
City Manager Talley confirmed that the City's dues in SCAG were up on July 1,
1978, but it would remain a voting member until 90 days thereafter.
78-542
City Hal~., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 2~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth requested that the staff report previously requested then be
submitted prior to June 1, 1978, so that the City could make some recommendation
and thus take a leadership role.
Mr. Talley stated that the report would be submitted to the Council for the
June 6, 1978 Council meeting, but it would be in their hands before that date.
Councilwoman Kaywood also asked staff to provide the League of Cities with a
City seal for their office wall, and that a decal of the same would serve their
purpose.
148: COMMITTEE WORK ON SCAG: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a communication
from SCAG to all public officials and member cities announcing 4 broad areas of
committee work inviting elected officials to become members of those committees:
Transportation and Utilities; Human Services; Environmental Quality and Resources
Conservation; Community and Economic Development.
148: BENEFITS TO ANAHEIM DERIVED FROM SCAG MEMBERSHIP: Councilwoman Kaywood noted
the following direct benefits to Anaheim derived from its membership in SCAG also
as a result of her position on the Executive Committee of the organization: noise
barriers for the new 57 Freeway now included in the 1977-78 Caltrans Budget for
over $1 million and the Haster Street Overcrossing. The latter was considered to
be a local matter by Caltrans, but Councilwoman Kaywood pointed that it was the
gateway to Disneyland, accommodating approximately 10 million people a year. The
City was thus funded $600,000 on the project.
174: CORRECTION IN MINUTES OF EAST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION:
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the City's population figure as expressed in
the subject minutes be corrected from 207 million to 200,100.
142: CONTROL AND REGULATION OF NEWS RACKS: Councilman Roth explained that public
reaction since last Tuesday relative to the concern he expressed over pornographic
news racks in the public right-of-way was unbelievable. He subsequently met with
representatives of the Police Department and, in their opinion, all news racks were
in compliance with the existing law as interpreted. Relative to the ordinance, he
requested that the Council direct the City Attorney to review it with the Vice
Squad as he believed there were several provisions which could be enforced, partic-
ularly the unreasonable interfering or impedement of the flow of pedestrian traffic.
As well, the City Attorney should investigate the possibility of strengthening the
ordinance although he realized the Constitutional problems involved in dealing with
the press. He emphasized however he was only concerned with the pornographic press.
He also checked with the License Division, and as he reported in an earlier meeting,
fees for bus benches were raised to $10 while at the same time Pornographic news
racks were paying a gross receipts tax of only $25 a year, enabling them to distribute
pornographic literature throughout the entire City. He also asked that the matter be
investigated to ascertain whether or not a different type of fee structure could be
implemented, rather than gross receipts tax.
Councilman Roth also referred to the City of Santa Ana's unanimous support of a
Statewide initiative called, "Decency in the Environment Today" giving more local
control in dealing with pornographic material. He recommended that the City
Attorney obtain a copy of the initiative from Santa Ana and distribute it to the
Council, and if considered favorably, garner the support of citizens.
.~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May_.2, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
78-543
Councilman Roth thereupon clarified his motion: direct the City Attorney to
review the news rack ordinance with the Vice Squad to investigate the possibility
of strengthening that ordinance; investigate the Statewide initiative "Decency in
the Environment Today" with copy to be secured from Santa Ana and distributed to
the Council for possible subsequent action. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
149: DR. GARTNER PROPERTY ON STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD: Councilman Kott questioned
the status of the complaint received from Dr. Gartner relative to people parking
on his property, specifically patrons of Jezebels.
Mayor Seymour stated that he dictated a letter to Dr. Gartner regarding the matter,
and also asked the City Clerk to request the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Whitey
Walp, to investigate the matter to see what could be done to clean up the property.
Miss Santalahti also stated that through a Planning Commission action taken the
week before, a conditional use permit was approved for a Wendy's drive-through
restaurant on the subject property which would subsequently alleviate the current
problem.
106/114: EXCLUSION OF BUDGET MATTERS FROM TEAM APPROACH CONCEPT: Referring to the
earlier discussion, Councilman Kott stated that since liaison committees were
going to be working on City matters, he believed the Budget should also be covered.
Thus, he recommended that Councilwoman Kaywood be appointed to work on the Budget
Committee.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she did not wish to be on such a committee, and
further, that it was not proper to include the Budget in that concept since no
board or commission was involved. As well, it was a matter in which the entire
Council should be involved.
The Mayor stated that he shared Councilman Kott's concern about the Budget
and suspected that most of the Council also shared that concern. Although
he would like to have seen it included, ~n the interest of obtaining four
votes of support, he was willing to have the concept go forward with the
exclusion of the Budget. He was certain that it would be very successful
and based upon that success, there would be no reservations in implementing
the same concept in the area of Budget in 1979-80.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:10 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK