1978/05/3078-633
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:90 P.M,
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER/GOLF COURSE DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Thornton E. Piersall
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR: Phil Schwartze
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDANT: George Edwards
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti
MANPOWER PLANNER: Bill Hepburn
COMMUNITY SERVICES SPECIALIST: Kate Kocher
Mayor Sey~.our called the meeting to order and welcomed ~those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: In lieu of formal invocation, Mayor Seymour requested a 'thirty-.
second period of silence.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and unanimously approved by the City Council:
"PBX Operators Week in Anaheim" - June 4-10, 1978
"Law and Order Night in Anaheim" - June 1, 1978
"Recreation and Parks Month in Anaheim" - June, 1978
"Retinitis Pigmentosa Week" - June 4-10, 1978
"Resolution of Commendation" - R. Kenton Wines
The "Recreation and Parks Month in Anaheim" Proclamation was accepted by Mr. Jim
Ruth, Anaheim Parks, Recreation and Arts Director.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes
of the regular meeting held March 14, 1978, were approved with correction to page 9,
third paragraph, last sentence, to read: "He (Thom) was not supposed to be voting
for himself, he acted contrary to Council's action." Councilmad 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 reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,381,414.87, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
78-634
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M,
1~4: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - HISTORIC PRESEgVATION STUDY AND CATALOG (SECOND YEAR
CDBG PROJECT): Request for proposals for historic preservation study and catalog
was submitted together with recommendation that the Community Development Depart-
ment be authorized to advertise for and mail same to known interested parties.
Mayor Seymour noted that the request for proposal indicates a payment to the
Consultant of $5,000 maximum, and reviewing the work to be performed, questioned
whether all of this could be accomplished for that sum.
Ms. Kocher advised that the ad hoc co~nittee discussed this proposal with a
number of people who have performed this type of work and were assured the sum is
very adequate. She explained that they will use a lot of citizen volunteer work.
In further response to Mayor Seymour, Ms. Kocher indicated that Mr. Leo Friis,
the city's historian laureate, would certainly be involved as they would require
his assistance, but as yet they do not know in what capacity; however he will
receive an R.FoP.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council authorized advertisement of request for proposals for a historic preser-
vation study and catalog. MOTION CARRIED.
174: YOUTH PAINT AND PICK-UP PROGRAM AGREEMENT (JOHN RUSH AND WALLACE G. A~EX-
ANDER - CDBG PROJECT): In accordance with the recon~nendation submitted by the
Community Development Department, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
Nos. 78R-335 and 78R-336 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-335: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL
SERVICES. (John Rush)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-3.36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
(Wallace G. Alexander)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-335 and 78R-336 duly passed and adopted.
123: LEASE AGREEMENT, NOXSEL INVESTMENT COMPANY (MANPOWER SERVICE OFFICE SPACE,
1020 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD): Proposed amendment to the above'lease agreement
extending the term to May 31, 1979, for $1,000 per month, was submitted for Council
consideration.
Council Members Kott, Seymour and Roth questioned why the activity could not be
housed in one of the vacated commercial buildings in downtown Anaheim, or space
leased in the E1Camino Bank Building from the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, or
in the Kraemer Building.
Mr. Priest noted that improved space in the E1 Camino Bank Building is leased
at approximately forty-eight to fifty cents per square foot.
78-635
City Ha~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUT.ES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:70 P.M.
Mr. Hepburn explained that he had looked at space in the E1Camino Bank Building
one year ago and the parking situation was a problem. In addition, they require
a storage facility for the Housing Repair Program work materials, and this is
provided on-site at their current location.
In reply to Councilman Kott, it was noted that the materials requiring storage
include paints and solvents, and these would not be permitted to be kept in
the basement of the E1Camino Bank Building.
It was further noted that the Manpower Services Program is funded on a year-
to-year basis and the scope and size of the program can change drastically, and
therefore impact the space requirements for administering same. Mr. Hepburn
explained that when original plans for the City Hall were drawn, this program
was not in existence, but he has since submitted s space plan for his function
to be housed in the new Civic Center As yet, they do not know for sure that
this will be the case. In the meantime, it is most likely that they would come
in for at least one more yearly extension to May, 1980, of this lease, as the
target Civic Center completion date is 3une 1, 1980.
At the conclusion of discussion Councilman Seymour summarized that it appeared
to him a majority of the City Council wished to see some alternatives to this
proposal presented.
Mr. Hepburn noted that he has stayed in fairly close touch with Norman Priest
regarding the space possibilities in other downtown buildings, but has yet to
find one with adequate provision for storage nf the housing repair materials
which include twenty-four foot.pieces of pipe and lumber. He indicated that.
depending upon what happens with City Hall, one option open to him is to split
the Housing Repair Program and locate those individuals at another facility.
However, he felt the proposal submitted offered a fair, competitive price at
fifty cents per square foot.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the price of fifty cents per square
foot, in either case, this week's proposal or a Redevelopment Project building,
would be the same. She thereupon offered the resolution authorizing an amend-
ment to s lease agreement with E. Ray Noxsel, dba Noxsel's Investment Company,
for office space at 1020 South Anaheim Boulevard for use by Manpower Services
for $1,000. per month with the term ending May 31, 1979.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared said resolution failed to carry.
By general Council consent, the lease proposal was continued for a period of
two weeks and staff directed to investigate and report on possibilities for
housing the Manpower Services function in existing buildings owned by the
Redevelopment Agency, and preferably located in the downtown area.
78-636
City Hall, Anaheim, Cslifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1~.30 P.M.
153: AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY - ADDITION OF LEAD ASPHALT
PAVING WORKER: Mr. Garry MoRse explained that this proposed amendment to
Personnel Rule 6.6 is necessary to include one position, that of Lead Asphalt
Paving Worker, to the provision for payment mf double time for overtime hours
worked between the hours of twelve midnight and 8:00 A.M. He explained that
this is an upgrade job position, utilized to provide a supervisory position
when asphalt paving contractors and City crews work together on the larger
street paving jobs, which begin at 6:00 A.M. He stressed, in reply to Council
questions, that the double time rate is only paid when this employee works
more than his regular eight-hour shift, and that the double time rate is paid
only for hours worked between midnight and 8:00 A.M.
Mayor Seymour questioned what form of specific approval the Council had given
to Personnel Rule 6.6, as he did not recall any detailed discussion of the
matter.
Mr. McRae summarized that modification of the double time provision and six-
teen hour rule was s matter of negotiations in the fall of 1977, with the
I.B.E.W. unit and discussed with both them and the City Council over a period
of several months. They were again reviewed with Council before the final
proposal was made to the employee organizations. Subsequent to that, the
Counci~ by resolutio~ adopted modifications to Rule 6.6. He explaised that
when this extension of the double time period was approved, all classes
affected were added to the provision except this one particular job class.
Mayor Seymour questioned why the City does not assign an existing full time
position capable of performing these duties without any increase in pay.
Mr. McRae explained that the City has entered agreements with the employee
bargaining groups to pay an additional five per cent when the employee is
required to perform work with more responsibility than his normal assignment.
Councilman Kott questioned whether this overtime rate would be paid if a
person began working st 6:00 and worked eight hours, leaving at 2:30 P.M.,
to which Mr. McRae responded negatively, that the overtime rate is paid only
when overtime hours are worked, i.e., in excess of the regular eight-hour
shift. If the individual were to work overtime hours other than during the
period of midnight to 8:00 A.M., he would then be paid at the regular over-
time rate, which is time and one-half.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the estimated cost of this particular
provision for one year amounts to $576., and this resolution would add only
one person who was previously left out of the agreement.
Mayor Seymour stressed that it is the principle involved which he could not
accept and furthermore could not recall discussion relative to paying double
time rates during the period of midnight to 8:00 A.M. He added that if he
had full knowledge of that type of decision today, he would oppose it.
78-637
City Hall, Anaheim, California - QOUN~IL MiNUTES - May ~0, ~7~, 1:30 P.M.
In further explanation of Rule 6.6, Mr. McRae noted this rule has to do with
overtime hours only.. The basic premium paid for overtime work is time and one-
half. There is one exception to this basic rule which is for overtime hours
worked between midnight and 8:00 A.M. for certain specific job classifications.
These are primarily in the Utilities Department classifications. This provis-
ion was also extended during negotiations to include some employees who are
also required to go out and work on the street during weather emergencies
(tree tri~m~ers, street maintenance people). When it was originally negotiated.
the double time period was from midnight to 6:00 A.M., when it was extended to
8:00 A.M., this particular job classification was not included in the resolu-
tion. He concluded that the only ~ssue which he is attempting to resolve is
the overtime provision between 6:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. for this particular
employee.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-337 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-337: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801, PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY, TO ADD THE
CLASS OF LEAD ASPHALT PAVING WORKER TO SECTION 6.6 WHICH PROVIDES FOR. PAYMENT
OF TWICE THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY FOR ALL TIME WORKED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF MID-
NIGHT AND 8:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Kott and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-337 duly passed and adopted.
109: OPPOSITION TO ACQUISITION OF EXCESS CALTRANS PROPERTY FOR AN ARMORY;
Recommendation from the Planning Department that the City Council adopt a reso-
lution opposing the acquisition by the California Military of excess Caltrans
property located at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Orangethorpe
Avenue for an armory was submitted. Said report also indicates that the
Community Development Department has an interest in purchasing said property
for a potential Iow-income housing project.
Councilman Roth stated that he disagreed with the proposed resolution for
several reasons, these being primarily that he does not feel the site is suit-
able for low income housing because of its proximity to the railroad tracks and
commercial development on the corner: secondarily, the City had an opportunity
to make an offer to bid on this property some time back and did not exercise
the right. He voiced concern that every time the military expresses interest
in an area, people want to chase them off. He stated he did not see anything
wrong with having an armory in the northeast section of the County.. He con-
cluded that he felt local government should support the military rather than
attempting to turn them out.
78-638
Qity Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had no objection to the development of an armory
but supports the proposed resolution opposing this particular acquisition of
land because this would take that property off the tax rolls and also because
there is a new residential area, and he was of the opinion the placement of a
military armory immediately adjacent to residential does not make good plan-
ning sense.
Mr. Phil Schwartze responded that the City is certainly not looking to chase
the military out as suggested by Councilman Roth, but rather is looking at
other properties for them in the City of Anaheim which might be more suitable
for the armory than the one proposed. Several sites were suggested by the
Planning Commission at a work session recently.
The area in question is being proposed for some General Plan Amendments and
therefore, the Council will be seeing several alternatives for land uses in
this area in a few months. The rationale for the resolution opposing the
land acquisition was to inform the State ~overnment and Caltrans that the City
would like to study this area for potential low-income housing development,
and to suggest properties more suitable for an armory in and around the indus-
trial areas which have immediate access to the freeways. He noted that at the
present time it is not even known whether the proposed armory would be simply
a storage depot or a training facility.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
No. 78R-338 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-338: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OPPOSING CALIFORNIA MILITARY ACQUISITION OF EXCESS CALTRANS PROPERTY FOR AN
ARMORY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF IMI~ERIAL HIGHWAY AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-338 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT WITH LAWRENCE O'TOOLE FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES (CITY PARCEl,
NOS. 10, 249. 262 and 283): In accordance with direction given by Council at
the May 9. 1978 meeting, Resolution and Agreement were prepared and presented
for approval at this time.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-339 for adoption. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-)39: 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 LAWRENCE O'TOOLE FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
78-639
City Hall. Anahe.~m, Californi~- COUNCIL MINUTES Max 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-339 duly passed and adopted.
123: _APPROVAL IN CONCEPT OF FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT.- ~NGLING ~RO~HERS BARNUM
AND BAILEY CIRCUS .FOR PERFORMANCES AT THE CONVENTION CENTER; On motion by
Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved
in concept the proposed contract with Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus
and authorized the Stadium/Convention Center/Golf Director to prepare a new
five-year agreement for performances at the Convention Center, in accordance
with the terms presented. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Liegler introduced the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey representative,
Mr. Earl Duryea, who thanked the Council for their approval and interest and
stated that his firm always looks forward to coming to Anaheim to perform at
the Convention Center.
160: AUTHORIZATION FOR PURCHASING AGENT TO REQUEST INFORMAL BIDS FOR PURCHASE
OF ELECTRIC METERS~ Request of the Purchasing Agent for Council authorization
to utilize the informsl bid process in the scquisition of electric meters at sn
estimated cost in excess of $5,000. was submitted for Council consideration.
Mr. Talley explained that this recommendation is based on the fact that there
are only four manufacturers of these items and the Purchasing Agent would con-
tact all four with a request for sealed bids.
In response to Councilman Kott, Mr. Talley advised that the Purchasing Agent
is not advertising a fixed amount for these items, but simply noting that the
cost of the meters would exceed $5,000. which is the limit set by Council
Policy beyond which all bids must be formally advertised unless Council spproves
the informal solicitation for bids process. He added that, since there are
only four manufacturers, it is felt the City would save time and money by using
the informal process.
Mayor Seymour stated that he has s problem with the informal bid process
because of credibility with the citizens. He voiced the opinion that the City
should aiways follow the formal bid process. However, in this case, since
there are only four manufacturers, he would be satisfied with receiving sealed
bids from them. However, he added that he is totally dissatisfied with the
situation which appears to have been caused by a lack of advance planning by
the Utilities Department so that the City is now faced with a possible shortage
of meters. He voiced the opinion that this places the City Council in an
untenable position in that they have little choice but to go along with the
recommendation for informal bids because of the necessity for speedy delivery
so as not to inconvenience members of the public who will need the meters.
78-640
~it¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978. 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. George Edwards to corroborate that there is in fact a
need for quick delivery of the meters, and Mr. Edwards replied affirmatively
that they do need these and that by going to the informal process, delivery of
these would be expedited. Mr. Edwards explained that the meter shop of his
department did turn in requisitions for meters as these became necessary, but
the requisitions were not processed in the same manner as in the past.
Mr. Talley explained that in the past these items were ordered every three to
four months since the cost would not exceed the limit allowed the Purchasing
Agent when purchased in these quantities. However, when the number of meters
purchased in a fiscal year is considered, then it is an amount considerably
over $5,000. The mixup apparently came about as a result of the transition
of Purchasing Agents and the attempt made by Mr. Jefferis to conform to
Council policy in an attempt to correct an existing situation which was thwart-
ing Council policy.
Mayor Seymour still felt there was some communication lacking between the
Purchasing Department and Electrical Division to determine when the meters
would be needed so that the City Council would not be asked to avoid, for the
second time in approximately four months, the formal bid process with the
justification for such avoidance being that someone did not order their
requirements on time.
Mr. Talley assured Council Members that if they were not comfortable with using
the informal bid procedure, the other method could still be followed.
Mayor Seymour took issue with this statement, noting that the Council does not
have that option open to them at this point because of the lack of meter
inventory.
Councilman Kott voiced the opinion that the formal vs. informal bid process is
of secondary importance, that the meter shortage situation was caused because
the Purchasing Agent did not follow through.
Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that her feeling would be that when there are
only two to four manufacturers of a particular.item and the Purchasing Agent
is aware of who these are, there is no problem with using the informal process
as long as the bids themselves are sealed; that she also felt if it does not
cost more to find out than it is worth, it would be well to know what the total
advertising costs over the one year period add up to.
Mayor Seymour disagreed with Councilwoman Kay-wood's statement, noting that it is
his belief that the intent of the formal bid procedure is to insure that the
taxpayer gets the best possible price; to the degree that the Council begins to
avoid use of formal bids, assuming a department head tells them there are only
so. many manufacturers and all would be contacted, if that statement~ proved
untrue, then the Council will shortly have suppliers alleging that'some City
employee is playing games. With the formal bid process, the City would avoid
any such situation.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
Council authorized the Purchasing Agent to request informal sealed bids for
purchase of electric meters, the cost estimated to exceed $5,000. MOTION
CARRIED.
78-641
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 90, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
Council authorized Administration to work with the department heads and the
Purchasing Agent to develop s policy as to when informal bids may be used and
present same to Council for approval. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
City Council recessed for five minutes (2:55 P.M.). MOTION CARRIED.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all members of the
City Council being present. (3:00 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-53 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1815: Application by E. O. Rodeffer for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 and ML to ML on property located on the east side of Dale Avenue,
south of Orangethorpe Avenue, to permit a racquetball facility.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-56 and PC78-57,
declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the project and, further,
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-53 and Conditional Use Permit No.-1815,
subject to the following conditions:
Reclassification No. 77-78-53:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement
of structural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in s manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer,
5. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issu-
ance of a building permit.
6. That Conditions Nos. 1, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Conditional Use Permit No. 1815:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 77-78-53, now pending.
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 and 2.
Review of City Planning Commission action was requested by Mayor Seymour,
scheduled on May 16, 1978, and continued to this date to allow time for the
Planning Commission to review more specific plans.
Miss Santalahti reported that the matter of concern to the Planning Commission,
that of the requirement for rest rooms, which the development would apparently
not be able to meet, was discussed one week ago and it was determined these are
required by the Building Code and no waiver would be permitted.
78-6/`. 2
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Mmy 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent was present and wished to address
the Council. There was no response.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council.
Mr. Ken Griffith representing the City of Buena Park reiterated their concern
that the property be developed in accordance with their standards, inasmuch as
it would appear to be located in that city.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmentsl impact
and is therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-340 and 78R-341 for adoption,
denying both Reclassification No. 77-78-53 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1815,
the reasons for said denial being that the proposed facility would not provide
the required rest room-facilities and therefore would not be in the best interest
of the community, and further reversing the findings made by the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-340: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (77-78-53)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-341: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AR&HEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1815.
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-340 and 78R-341 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1810; Application of Donald E.
Boucher. Robert L. Wallis, and Mary Ann Javelera, to permit a veterinary hospital
on CL(SC) zoned property located on the northwest side of Rio Grande Drive, south-
west of Fairmont Boulevard with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-64, declsred that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 1810 subject to the following conditions:
78-643
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4 That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer.
5. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then
be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
6. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
7. The existing power poles on subject property shall be removed and the lines
installed underground as approved by the Director of Public Utilities.
8. That the developer of subject property shall purchase the remnant parcel of
property which is located between the subject property and Santa Aha Canyon
Road.
9. That a minimum 10 foot wide equestrian and hiking trail easement shall be
provided in accordance with the Canyon Area General Plan and shall be dedi-
cated to the City of Anaheim.
10. That the developer provide an access easement on subject property for the
use by the adjacent property to the west.
11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City Df Anaheimmmrked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 5, provided, however, that equestrian and hiking trails shall
be constructed in accordance with the Canyon Area General Plan.
12; That Condition Nos. 5, 8, 9 and 10, above mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution,
or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of
one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
13. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 11, above mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
14. That there shall be only one vehicular access driveway from subject property
and the adjacent commercial properties onto Rio Grande Drive, and it shall
be aligned with Donna Court: that the specific configuration of said driveway
shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer; and that any revised circulation
plans for subject property and adjacent commercial properties shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
15. The landscaped median in Santa Aha Canyon Road shall be cl6sed prior to the
co~letion of the access driveway to and from Santa Aha Canyon Road.
16. All activities shall be conducted wholly inside the building.
Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested by Council-
woman Kay-wood at. the meeting of May 2, 1978 and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti reviewed the information contained in the Planning Staff Report
as well as the recommendations submitted by the Traffic Engineer.
78-644
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
In response to Councilman Kott, it was explained that the chief objections to
this proposal were the requested vehicular access from Santa Aha Canyon Road.
In addition, some residents south of Rio Grande Drive did not wish to see the
property utilize that street for any vehicular access whatsoever, and some
individuals to the west were concerned with the appearance of the project.
Mr. Bill Asawa, 540 North Golden Circle Drive, Santa Aha, Agent for the
applicants, reviewed the location of the property and described the problems
which they are attempting to resolve in the development of same, namely that
there are four separate parcels of land including the Canyon Garden Nursery
for which uhey are attempting to provide one access. He explained that there
is a historical site, the Peralta Adobe House, which has been incorporated
into the site development plans and that they are willing to work with the
County on reciprocal parking arrangements.
In response to Councilman Roth, Mr. Asawa stated that he has been working on
this particular project since February of this year; has met with HACMAC on
four different occasions.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone else in favor of the proposal wished to speak.
Mr. Toshiro Hiraide, 1515 Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardens, representing the
nursery property (Canyon Gardens), stated that he has met with Mr. Asawa and
his clients and they have come to a fairly good compromise. His company
supports the proposal as set forth by Mr. Asawa, which gives their property
access from the road going into the shopping area as indicated on the drawings.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor of the proposal,
the Mayor called for those in opposition who wished to speak.
Mr. Lynn Buffington, Chairman of HACMAC, advised that he is speaking not so
much in opposition to the particular proposal, that they are in favor of the
use proposed for the property as a veterinary hospital, but their concern is
mainly due to the requested access to Santa Ana Canyon and the impact on safety
of that road, as well as the impact of the road configuration with this access
on the riding and hiking trail system.
Mr. Buffington observed that most of the potential patrons of the veterinary
hospital and shopping center would come from the opposite or eastern end of
the canyon, therefore this driveway configuration would invite an uncontrolled
U-turn situation; that there is a junior high school in the immediate area,
and this particular intersection is at the main thoroughfare for the students:
that the deceleration lane as planned would severely impact the riding and
hiking trail which they feel they are committed to on the south side of Santa
Ana Canyon Road. He reviewed that the Traffic Engineer would prefer no
access, either ingress or egress, to this property from Santa Aha Canyon
Road. He concluded that he felt there is sufficient access to the property
available from Rio Grande and Fairmont.
Further, Mr. Buffington requested Council to consider in making this decision
that the Canyon Gardens Nursery is currently using a portion of the S.A.VoI.
easement for a plant storage yard, this easement is meant to form a part of
the trails system, the trail is planned to run southward across Rio Grande
and make s major connection to the Four Corners Pipeline in this area.
78-645
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Secretary of the Hill and Canyon Muni-
cipal Advisory Co~mnittee (HACMAC), advised that she represented HACMAC at
the last Planning Commission hearing on this matter and because she felt
there was some misunderstanding, reviewed the reasons for objections as set
forth in a petition presented at a prior Planning Commission hearing which
ia a part of the written record. She observed that the Notice of Hearing
sent to homeowners described only that a veterinary hospital use was pro-
posed for this property and did not mention the fact that those who have
purchased homes out in the hill and canyon area have been told for some
time now that the City Council has adopted a policy that there would be no
additional openings onto Santa Aha Canyon Road. The reason the access
question is so critical at this point, according to Mrs. Hall, is that the
egress planned onto Santa Aha Canyon Road is only 370 feet from Fairmont
Boulevard. She read traffic projections for this particular area which
compare with volumes of traffic currently experienced on Euclid Street
between Lincoln and Ball, and Harbor Boulevard between Ball and Katella.
She also voiced concern regarding students from E1 Rancho Junior High
School who cross this intersection from housing tracts to the west of the
proposed center along Santa Aha Canyon Road. She voiced opposition to any
ingress or egress onto Santa Aha Canyon Road, stating that if people want
to use this particular shopping center, they will find their way into it by
either Fairmont Boulevard or Rio Grande.
Mrs. Kay Clayton, 6142 San Lorenzo, voiced opposition to the project
taking, access from Rio Grande because this street runs through a residential
area. When she purchased her home she was told that only a veterinary hos-
pital would be developed on subject property, and she stated it would be an
injustice to herself and her neighbors if more than a veterinary hospital
were permitted, as they were not originally advised of same.
Mr. Stephen MacCollom, 210 Pasco Pacaro, Anaheim, voiced his concern that
the ingress-egress situation as planned onto Santa Aha Canyon Road would be
extremely hazardous. He doubted it would be possible for vehicles to safely
merge with the traffic in such a short space.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor
offered the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Earl Mellott, 2051 East Cerritos, Anaheim, Architect for the project,
stated that the reason they prepared the overall layout for the shopping
center was that it was requested at HACMAC meetings. One of the reasons the
access was requested onto Santa Aha Canyon Road and the plans drawn that way
was that the developers thought they had reached some agreement-with HACMAC
and land owners that such an access point would keep a tremendous amount of
non-neighborhood traffic off of Rio Grande Avenue. At the last Planning
Commission meeting because of complaints regarding access onto Rio 'Grande two
planned access points were cut down to one. He advised that they WOuld very
much like the other access point reinstated, primarily because of terrain
problems. They feel they need the two access points so as to be able to
adjust their site plan to make it workable.
78-646
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30. 1978~ 1:30
Mayor Seymour compared the subject property with that at the southwest cor-
ner of Imperial Highway and Santa Aaa Canyon Road, which is a busier inter-
section and was developed commercially without taking access to Santa Ans
Canyon Road. He was of the opinion that if that particular intersection
could be utilized without Santa Aaa Canyon Road access, then a workable
solution could also be found for subject property without taking Santa Ana
Canyon Road access.
Mr. Asawa summarized that he did not feel it is fair to compare one site to
another, as the conditions are not exactly the same. He reviewed the traffic/
access situation for this particular property and related that one of the original
problems in development of the property is the fact that there are some seven
easements involved and a large drainage structure to be maintained.
The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Seymour questioned the Traffic Engineer as to why the median on Fair-
mont Boulevard could not be cut for ingress/egress as it was on Imperial
Highway to provide the access to that particular shopping center.
Mr. Singer explained that Fairmont Boulevard is only four lanes wide,-
whereas Imperial is six lanes, therefore there is not sufficient roadway
on Fairmont Boulevard to provide storage for cars waiting to make left
turns.
Mr. Singer reviewed his recommendations for the development and access to
this property for the City Council, namely that (1) he would recommend no
access, ingress or egress, from Santa Aaa Canyon Road. (2) If the CoUncil
feels the access point should be allowed on Santa Aaa Canyon Road, then it
should have a three hundred foot deceleration lane and the first access to
any parking area be one hundred fifty feet from the travel lanes on Santa
Ana Canyon Road; and that ingress only be provided from Santa Ana Canyon
Road with egress at two points, one on Fairmont and one on Rio Grande.
At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour noted that the property in
question, it is clear to him, is commercial property and has been designated
for such use on the General Plan for a long time. However, on the other
hand, he feels strongly that the Council should in every way possible
avoid additional a~cessway onto Santa Aaa Canyon Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council finds that no sensi-
tive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial
study submitted by the petitioner indicated no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is therefore exempt fr~m the
requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-342 for adoption reversing the
findings of the City Planning Commission and denying Conditional Use Permit
No. 1810, stating that the reason for denial is entirely based on the
requested requirement of an access point onto Santa Aaa Canyon Road. He
noted that the principle of limited access points on Santa Aaa Canyon Road
was adopted long ago by the Planning'Commission and City Council, and if
traffic projections are accurate, Santa Ana Canyon Road will be carrying
expressway loads.of traffic rather than considering it to be a rural street.
78-647
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M,
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-~42; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1810.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL I~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-342 duly passed and adopted.
155: PUBLIC HEARING - REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the scheduled public hearing on
request of Frederick M. Culmann to remove eighteen specimen trees on
property located at 244 South Owens Drive was continued to the meeting of
June' 6, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO 77-14A; In accordance with applica-
tion filed by the Water Division, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of an existing water line easement lying within a portion of
Tract No. 9721, located west of Fairmont Boulevard, south of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-300 duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending unconditional
approval of Abandonment No. 77-14A.
AlSo submitted was an excerpt of minutes from the regular City Planning
Commission meeting held April 24, 1978, indicating that the City Planning
Corm~ission also recommends approval of subject abandonment.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being
no response, declared the hearing closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION; On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guide-
lines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, there-
fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-343 for adoption approving Aban-
donment No. 77-14A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-34); A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (Abandonment No. 77-14A)
78-648
City Hall, Anaheim, California - ~OUNCIL MINUTES May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,Mf
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-343 duly pasaed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO, 77-21A; In accordance with applica-
tion filed by the Community Development Department, public hearing was held
on proposed abandonment of a portion of Oak Street lying between Harbor
Boulevard and Helena Street, 185 feet more or leaa south of Lincoln Avenue,
pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-301, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin
and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer was aubmitted recommending approval of Abandon-
ment No. 77-21A aubject to reserving unto the City of Anaheim a 15 foot
aanitary aewer easement to accommodate existing facilities.
Excerpt from the City Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting held
May 8, 1978, was also aubmitted indicating that the City Planning Commiaaion
recommends subject abandonment be approved.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no res-
ponse, he declared the hearing closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION; On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, aeconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim
guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR~ MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-344 for adoption approving
Abandonment No. 77-21A subject to the recommendation by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book°
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-~44: A RESOLUTION OF T}IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF OAK STREET
EXTENDING GENERALLY FROM HARBOR BOULEVARD TO A POINT APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET
EASTERLY THEREOF. (No. 77-21A)
Roll Call Vote:
A~ES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-344 duly paased and adopted.
78-649
City ,Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978. 1:30
!23./180: REVISED AGREEMENT - R. L. KAUTZ & COMPANY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF T~
WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM: Recommendation from the Risk Manager that the
City Council approve the terms and conditions of a new agreement with R. L. Kautz
& Company, said report also setting forth the significant revisions to the prior
agreement, was submitted.
In response to Councilman Kott, it was pointed out that the figure written in
on page 7 of $20,800 is correct and this writte~ change would be initialed by
the Mayor on execution of the agreement if Council so authorizes. With respect
to whether or not bids were sought for this work, Mr. Talley replied negatively.
He explained that the report from Warren McVeigh and Griffin made recommendations
regarding procedural changes. This report was accepted, received and filed by
the Council and now staff, with this revised agreement, is working to implement
the Warren McVeigh and Griffin recommendations.
In response to Mayor Seymour's concern as to what would be a reasonable period
for reporting to the Council in order to assure that the desired safeguards are
being effected, Mr. Love advised that he would personally monitor to see that
the new contract terms are met and would suggest a reporting period of ninety
days. He added that one of the major reasons for the recommendation not to
change service companies at this time is that there are some five hdndred
open cases, and changing to a new contract administrator would require that
first the task of reviewing all open cases be completed. He was therefore of
the opinion that a recommendation to change service companies prior to his
monitoring the work performed by R. L. Kautz for a reasonable period of time
would be premature.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-345 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-~4~: A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND R. L. KAUTZ & CO., A DIVISION OF PINEHURST CORP., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT RE ADMINISTRATION OF WORKERS' COMPEN-
SATION PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEM]~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-345 duly passed and adopted.
109: RESOLUTION URGING CALTRANS, CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND TH~
STATE LEGISLATURE TO INSURE REQUIRED EXPENDITURES FOR CALTRANS DISTRICT /:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-346 for adoption Refer to
Resolution Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-346: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
URGING THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), THE CALIFORNIA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR TO TAKE ALL
MEASURES TO INSURE THE EXPENDITURES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW FOR CALTRANS DISTRICT 7.
78-650
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-346 duly passed and adopted.
114/108: REVISION OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 116 - SOLICITATION PERMIT PROCEDURE:
Report and recommendation relating to a revised procedure for receiving and
reviewing applications for Solicitation Permits and allowing for administrative
approval of same, was submitted and explained by City Attorney Hopkins. He
noted that these applications would, under the revised policy, be processed
through a committee, and that there would be a procedure for appeals from
decisions made by that committee. He assured Councilwoman Kaywood that one of
the members on the co~nittee would represent the Police Department and would
make the necessary investigation to determine whether or not there had pre-
viously been a problem with any particular group.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Council approved and adopted the following Council Policy to supersede current
Council Policy No. 116, as recommended by the City Attorney:
"FUND RAISING ACTIVITIES: It is the policy of the City Council that
requests of charitable organizations to conduct drives, sales, and
other fund raising events are to be referred to the City of Anaheim
Solicitation Permit Review Board.
The Solicitation Permit Review Board will be composed of a represen-
tative of the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, Police
Department, License Division, and a representative of the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce.
The Solicitation Permit Review Board will meet during the last week
of each month to review and consider Applications for Solicitation
Permits that were received prior to the 15th day of said month.
The Solicitation Permit Review Board will make recommendations to
the City Council concerning approval or disapproval of Applications
for Solicitation of Charity Funds pursuant to the provisions of
Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 7.32.
In addition to the criteria for issuance or denial of Solicitation
Permits is set forth in Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 7.32, the
Solicitation Permit Review Board will consider:
(1) Will substantial benefits accrue to the citizens of
Anaheim from the applicant organization?
(2) Prior record of solicitation activities of the
applicant organization in the City of Anaheim.
An application fee of Ten Dollars ($10.00) will be paid by each
applicant to cover the cost of processing the Application for
Solicitation of Charity Funds.
78-651
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
"Solicitation Permits approved by the Solicitation Permit Review Board
may be issued administratively by the City Manager's Office. Appli-
cants whose Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds is
disapproved by the Solicitation Permit Review Board may appeal the
decision of the Board to the City Council. The City Clerk shall
collect the sum of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) to cover administra-
tive cost of processing an appeal from the Solicttion Permit Review
Board."
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott left the Council Chambers (4:20 P.M.).
175: REVISION TO COST SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM,
AZUSA. BANNING, COLTON AND RIVERSIDE - ANTITRUST LITIGATION, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON: The Utilities Director submitted a revision to the cost
sharing agreement with the Cities of Azusa, Banning, Colton and Riverside in
connection with antitrust litigation against Southern California Edison, in
response to Council direction given at the meeting of May 16, 1978. He reported
that the amendment would provide that if a city withdraws from the agreement, it
would not then share in any results of the litigation.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City council
approved the revision to cost sharing agreement with the Cities of Azusa, Ban-
ning, Colton and Riverside as submitted by the Utilities Director and authorized
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. Councilman Kott temporarily absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott returned to Council Chambers (4:27 P.M.).
115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING BOND COSTS: As requested
by the City Council at their meeting of April 18, 1978, and continued from the
meetings of May 2 and May 16, 1978, the City Engineer submitted a report
relative to the costs of five and ten-year roofing bonds for the Anaheim Civic
Center project.
Mr. Piersall verbally corroborated the recommendation in the City Engineer's
report, indicating that following investigation it is staff's recommendation
that because of the costs involved and reluctance of insurance agencies to
provide bonds for guarantee of a particular phase of construction, that such
bonds not be obtained. He added that their original reco~nendation was to hire
a roofing consultant to perform inspection who would be qualified as an expert
witness, should the City require the services. He reiterated that he still
felt such consultant would be worth the cost involved.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by CouncilmanOverholt,
the City Council directed that the City Engineer's report dated May 24, 1978,
regarding costs of roofing bond for the Anaheim Civic Center be received and
filed. MOTION CARRIED.
78-652
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Mmv 30, 1978. 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that prevention of a problem is the cheaper
way to go, and thereupon moved that the City Council accept the original
recommendation made by staff at the April 7, 1978, meeting to hire a consultant
to provide roofing inspection services at a cost of $5,385. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilman Overholt stated that in his opinion, to pay the
cost set forth for roofing inspection services which would: (1) Insure the
City that someone is there when the roof is being installed, and has the exper-
tise to see that all of the various subcontractors are performing to specifi-
cations; and (2) To have this individual available to the City as an expert
witness should litigation result; is well worth the price quoted. He stressed
that an insurance .agent or bonding company would, in the event of leakage,
become the City's adversary in Court, in that there are many avenues of escape
from the bonding provisions.
Mayor Seymour stated that if, in fact, the roof is likely to leak within the
first three years, why not bond it for this three to five years at almost one-
half the cost of the inspector. He stated that what the City needs is an
insurance policy which, no matter who is at fault, would pay off, and not an
additional person checking on what others have already checked.
Mr. Piersall reiterated that in his opinion, if the City could guarantee a first-
quality roof installation by means of having inspection services, they would be
years ahead.
In response to the Mayor, Mr. Hopkins noted that after considerable research on
the bonding problem, they have noted that the general consensus in the roofing
industry is that bonding would not resolve the financial loss of a leaking roof,
since if there had been an earthquake, or if someone had walked on it inadver-
tently to perform some maintenance, etc., in these situations the bonding
companies would claim the insurance did not apply.
Councilman RDth noted that in these particular situations the services of a
roofing inspector would not resolve the problem either.
Roll call vote was requested by the Mayor on the foregoing motion and said
motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
A BS ENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt and Kaywood
Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that staff be directed to put out
for bid a bond to provide for five-year coverage on the Civic Cente% roof.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
On roll call vote of the foregoing motion, said motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott, Roth and Seymour
Overholt and Kaywood
None
78-653
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the request of the City Manager, the City
Council recessed to Executive Session for ten minutes to discuss a personnel
matter. (4:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:55 P.M.)
166: LEGAL ANALYSIS - POLITICAL SIGN CONTROL ORDINANCE: As previously
requested at the Council meeting of May 16, 1978, the analysis prepared by the
City Attorney's Office on the subject of political signs and the enforcement of
ordinances prohibiting same was submitted for City Council consideration.
Mr. Hopkins summarized that as a result of two federal cases in which a bond or
deposit was required in conjunction with the posting of such signs, and was
considered to be a restraint of first amendment rights, several cities have
removed such provision for deposit or bond from their ordinances. He noted
that the City of Anaheim does have two Code sections dealing with the posting
of political signs, i.e., Sections 4.04.130 and 18.05.063 of the Anaheim Muni-
cipal Code, which could be enforced. He outlined that the difficulty is in
determining who is actually responsible for placement of the illegal sign. He
added that his recommendation would be, should Council wish to direct amendment
to the ordinance, that the amendment be an addition to the existing ordinance
and that it be in the form of an augmentation to add a public nuisance provision.
However, any summary abatement taking of signs on the theory of nuisance may
require an informal administrative hearing before the signs could be destroyed
and this should also be taken under consideration.
During Council discussion of the report presented, Councilwoman Kaywood noted
that she did not think the administrative time involved in the procedures
defcribed would make it worthwhile. Councilman Roth recalled that his main
concern when the issue was originally raised was with City crews removing the
signs at taxpayers' expense. Councilman Overholt voiced the opinion that if
the ordinance is not enforceable, it should be repealed as it creates an atmos-
phere of unfairness among the candidates.
At the conclusion of discussion, no further action was taken on the matter and
the City Attorney's analysis was, by general consent, received and filed.
123/153: AMENDMENT TO PERS CONTRACT - 25% ~NCREASE IN 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFITS:
In response to Council direction given at the meeting of February 7, 1978, the
Personnel Director submitted an actuarial valuation of the cost to add a 25%
increase in 1959 Survivor Benefits to the Miscellaneous Employees Retirement
Plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that this benefit was an item under aonsideration
d~ring the previous contract negotiation period, and apparently the A.M.E.A.
decided to drop it from their list of desired items. She stated that she had
great concern with the Council opening up and renegotiating benefits in open
session, almost a year after the original negotiations had taken place.
78-6~4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
Mr. Jake Petrosino remarked that the item was placed before the Council for
consideration at the request of the Council Members themselves, when the contract
for the safety members was amended to provide this increased benefit. The
Council at that time decided to explore the costs and possibility of extend-
ing this same benefit to the miscellaneous employees. He indicated that he
was present to support the extension of this benefit.
Ms. Karen Breusing of the A.M.E.A. advised Councilwoman Kaywood that this
benefit was included in the list submitted by the A.M.E.A. during negotia-
tions, and that when offers and counter-offers were passed back and forth,
the ultimate package which was accepted by the A.M.E.A. did not include the
increase in 1959 Survivor Benefits, but this does not mean the A.M.E.A. had
lost interest in it.
Mr. Talley clarified that the 1959 Survivor Benefits increase was included
by the A.M.E.A. on an exhaustive list of items but during negotiations,
while the list was passed back and forth, to the best of the negotiating
team's knowledge, no one can recall that it was ever actually discussed, and
was not dropped from the list until the very last.
Mr. McRae added that aside from Mr. Petrosino's appearance at a very early
session as an expert to review all of the retirement system benefits of whic
this was one, the subject, according to his records, was not raised again.
He noted that this present issue was never part of any offer made by the Citj
but was part of the A.M.E.A. basic proposal.
In response to Mayor Seymour, Mr. McRae explained that the costs for the
benefit are calculated on an actuarial study received from PERS which
indicates that the increase in the City's contribution rate will be .106%,
increasing the percentage from 13.030% to 13.136% of basic payroll for
miscellaneous employees for the first year. He noted that a computer
valuation made by PERS projects that the cost would go down 6% per year over
the twenty-year period.
Mr. Petrosino commented that the statistics he had personally run, based on
experience in other agencies, shows Anaheim would be fully paid up in six to
thirteen years, depending upon its experience with the rate of actual utili-
zation of the benefit. In addition, he explained that the percentage cost
for the benefit does not decrease an even 6% per year, and the City will
continue accumulating some t'hirty-four to thirty-six t'housand dollars in a
reserve account for this specific benefit.
In response to Mayor Seymour, Mr. McRae stated that the basic disagreement
between himself and Mr. Petrosino as regards the cost of the benefit stems
from the fact that Mr. Petrosino believes the PERS Actuarial Study ~as
made some ultraconservative judgments. He added that the only information __~
he had submitted to the Council was the additional cost of this particular
benefit based on the actuarial study done by PERS.
At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded
by Councilman Kott, the City Council determined to enact an amendment to the
PERS'Retirement Contract to provide a 25% increase in 1959 Survivor Benefits
for Miscellaneous Employee, and directed PERS to prepare a resolution of
intention to amend said contract. To this motion Councilwoman Kaywood voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
78-655
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M,
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she had no objection to the increase to be
provided for widows and children, however she reiterated her concern that this
reopening of negotiations with employee groups when a particular benefit was
not awarded during negotiations, could establish a precedent.
Mayor Seymour stated that if the City Council were to be consistent about not
considering any amendments to the employee contract until the actual negotia-
tion period, then they should not consider the next item on the agenda dealing
with possible deletion of the mandatory retirement age of sixty-seven.
Councilman Kott was of the opinion that the City Council should remain an open
and approachable body.
123/153: AMENDMENT TO PERS CONTRACT - ELIMINATION OF MAN-DATORY RETIREMENT AGE:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council authorized the Personnel Director to initiate procedures to amend the
miscellaneous employees retirement contract with PERS to eliminate mandatory
retirement at age sixty-seven, with effective date of September 8, 1978. MOTION
CARRIED.
173: ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - REPRESEN-
TATION: (Continued fromM ay 23, 1978) Request of Mr. Herb Eggett that the City
Council appoint a City representative to their committee was briefly discussed.
Since it was still not clear whether or not Mr. Eggett and the committee wished
representation by an elected official or someone in an advisory capacity, the
matter was further continued an additional week to allow time for the Mayor to
discuss same with Mr. Eggett.
105: APPOINTMENT OF TENANT COMMISSIONER TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION: Councilman
Kot~ nominated Mrs. Patricia Bayley, 801 North Loara Street, No. 224, Anaheim,
to fill the vacancy of Tenant Commissioner on the Housing Commission, term ending
June 30, 1981. Mr. Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1679 - EXTENSION OF ~IME: Request of Mr. David W.
Hook, Sunset Construction, Inc., for an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1679 was sub~itted together with report from the Planning Department
recommending a one-year extension of time be granted retroactive to February 8,
1978, and expiring February 8, 1979.
Mr. Hook explained that it had taken his firm the better part of the past four-
teen months to acquire a strip of land which was not originally in their possession
so that they could make the required dedication to the City. They are now in a
position of being able to dedicate this property, thereby meeting one of their
conditions of approval.
Mr. Hook also reviewed that when this Conditional Use Permit to construct a
three-story office complex on C-R zoned property at the southwest corner of
Freedman Way and Manchester Avenue was initially granted, Caltrans was not
interested in the land in question. However, the Anaheim City Engineer's Office
contacted him in July of 1977 and advised that Caltrans was renewing their
Anaheim Boulevard-Haster Street overcrossing project. Further, he understands
they will not begin land acquisition for same until December of 1979.
78-6~6
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca.lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M,
Mayor Seymour cormmented that if Mr. Hook intends to use the Conditional Use
Permit in question merely as additional leverage to obtain a better price from
Caltrans for subject property, then perhaps an extension of time would not be
in the best interest of the City. He indicated that he would not support a
motion for the extension of time unless Mr. Hook gave the Council his assurance
that it is in fact his intention to build on the property unless Caltrans makes
a move to buy it before the Conditional Use Permit expires.
Mr. Hook advised that if Caltrans does not wish to utilize the property, then
they will build their project; that he would like very much to take some action
which will require Caltrans to move in one way or the other.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
City Council granted an extension of time retroactive to February 8, 1978, and
expiring February 8, 1979, to Conditional Use Permit No. 1679, subject to the
developer dedicating the required right-of-way and posting improvement bonds
within ninety days, as recommended. To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
164: AWARD OF LA PALMA AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT (750 FEET EAST OF
BLUE GUM STREET TO BLUE GUM STREET): In accordance with the recommeBdations of
the City Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-347 for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-347: A RESOLUTION O~ THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ 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 COM]PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: LA PALMA AVENLFE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, E/O BLUE GUM STREET, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000. (Fleming Engineering, Inc.,
$13,200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declsred Resolution No. 78R-347 duly passed and adopted.
164: AWARD OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD SEWER IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT (180 FEET NORTH OF
LA PALMA AVENUE TO LA PALMA AVENUE): In accordance with recommendation of the
City Engineer, Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-348 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 78R-)48: 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 EQUIPMENT
AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: ANAHEIM BOULEVARD SEWER IMPROVEMENT, N/O LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000. (Fleming Engineering, Inc
$8,900) "
78-657
City Hall. Anaheim, CalifoFnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May ~0, 1978, 1:90 P,M,
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-348 duly passed and adopted.
164: AWARD OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT (263 FEET NORTH OF
TO LA PALMA AVENUE): In accordance with the reco~m~endation of the City Engineer,
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-349 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 78R-349: 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 EQUIPMENT
AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWE~FUEL AND WATER, AND PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT: LAKEVIEW AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT 236 FEET NORTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE TO
LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000.
(Fleming Engineering, Inc., $8,250)
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-349 duly passed and adopted.
160: RELEASE OF OBLIGATION AND PURCHASE OF TWO 1000 KVA 12000-240V TRANSFORMERS:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the ~City Council
accepted the Westinghouse Electric Supply Company's offer to release City of
their obligation to purchase two 1000 KVA 12000-240V Transformers and authorized
issuance of a purchase order to the General Electric Company in the amount of
$14,197.64 for said items. MOTION CARRIED.
178: REPORT OF ACTIVITIES OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (MWD): In response
to Council's earlier indication that they wished to be kept informed on a regular
basis of the activities of the MWD Board of Directors, Mr. Keith Murdoch presented
a quarterly report outlining these activities in conjunction with their support
of the Peripheral Canal project; their efforts to alleviate the energy problem
throughout the State water system, including participation in the Cottonwood and
other power plant facilities. He summarized that thirty-five people active in
various Anaheim business and civic interests were recently participants in a tour
of. the MWD system designed to show exactly what is necessary to bring water into
the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Murdoch's report included a su,~nary of the necessity for new construction and
improvements in the MW/) System including the installation of hydroelectric genera-
tors at various points and rehabilitation and replacement of many of the original
installations and equipment, particularly at the Diemer plant. He reported that
MWD is currently in negotiations as to whether or not they will purchase a portion
of the East: Orange County Feeder No. 2.
78-658
Qit¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
Mr. Murdoch discussed the bonded indebtedness of the Metropolitan Water District
and their 1975-76 bond issues. At the conclusion of his presentation, in response
to Councilman Kott, Mr. Murdoch indicated the location of the La Verne-Warmuth
Plant on the upper feeder, and advised that they now receive Kern River water at
this point which does not need to be softened, which is of much better quality for
the same price as they would be paying for Colorado River water. In addition he
noted for Councilman Kott that the Diemer Intertie which is not an MWD facility,
runs from the Diemer Plant south of the lower feeder across the river at some
point and extends beyond the Santiago Lateral. He also explained that he is not
completely familiar with the capacity of the Diemer line, however the Santiago
Lateral which comes up across the Nohl Ranch eastern limits would not have any-
where near the capacity to serve the needs of that area as well as Anaheim and
other users outside of Anaheim. He reviewed some of the additional reaches and
feeders used in the area and commented that water coming from the Imperial line
had to be pumped uphill and also had to be treated.
At the conclusion of the presentation, no action was taken by the City Council.
Council Members Kaywood and Kott left the Council Chambers (6:20 P.M.).
166: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ADVERTISING o SENIOR CITIZENS
VARIETY STORE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
City Council approved waiver of Code requirements relating to advertising of
merchandise at 1263-F East Lincoln Avenue, to permit display in front of the
store; and to permit a sign at Lincoln Avenue and East Street; and further to
waive fees for any permits in conjunction with said signs. Council Members
Kaywood and Kott temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member, and as listed on the Consent Calen-
dar 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, or were denied:
a. Claim submitted by Sheila Milgram for monetary damages purportedly sustained
as a result of power failure at Mavis Plaza Apartments, 731 North Mavis, Anaheim
on or about March 3, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Jon J. Visel, on behalf of Maria Batta and Jose Batta, for
personal damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on
or about January 18, 1978.
co Claim submitted by Montana Ro Schultz, on behalf of Alfred Dic~ Bryer, for
damages for false imprisonment purportedly sustained as a result of actions by
Anaheim Police on or about February 23, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by the Southern California Gas Company for property damages
purportedly sustained while grinding tree stumps at 924 East Lincoln Avenue on or
about April 3, 1978.
78-659
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
e. Claim submitted by the Southern California Gas Company for property damages
purportedly sustained as a result of short in electric cables at 151 Donna Court
on or about January 28, 1978.
f. Claim submitted by Frank B. Barcelona, Jr., on behalf of Jimmie Leroy Dolph,
for personal injuries sustained purportedly as a result of actions by Anaheim
Police on or about 3anuary 30, 1978.
g. Claim submitted by Mini Mart Food Store for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of malfunctioning transformer on or about April 17, 1978.
h. Claim submitted by Rocco V. Bucciarelli for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of power surge on or about April 9, 1978.
i. Claim submitted by Norman & Tornell, on behalf of Carol R. Ferraro (a minor),
for personal injuries and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of
an automobile being struck by a train as it crossed the Southern Pacific Railroad
tracks on or about January 25, 1978.
jo Claim submitted by Bernard Gilbert for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of malfunctioning transformer on or about April 30, 1978.'
k. Claim submitted by Donald J. Hess, on behalf of Florence Nickels, for personal
injuries sustained as a result of being hit by a car while crossing street at
Anaheim Boulevard and Lorraine Avenue on or about February 3, 1978.
1. Claim submitted by John Robert Klug for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about February 3~ 1978.
m. Claim submitted by Mildred M. Halasz for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident involving city-owned vehicle and Stephen M. Halasz, son of
the claimant, on or ,bout April 6, 1978.
no Claim submitted by Gillian Skinner for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident with city-owned vehicle on or about May 3, 1978.
o. Claim submitted by Fred Hunter, Esq., for reasonable attorney fees in connec-
tion with Superior Court Case No. 27-55-98, involving Anaheim Police Officer
Robert McKay, Plaintiff, for injuries sustained on or about August 27, 1977 was
denied. '
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
ao 173: Before the PUC, Application No. 57663 (amended), in the matter of the
Application of Mexcursiona, Inc., a corporation, for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to operate passenger stage tour service between points
in the County of San Diego, on the one hand, and various points in Orange County
on the other hand, and between the City of Anaheim, on the other hand, and various
points in San Diego County, on the other hand.
b. 114: City of Westminster Resolution No. 1922, requesting legislation to limit
the requirements for legal publication of ordinances.
78-660
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
c. 114: City of Westminster Resolution No. 1923, urging State legislation to
place the responsibility for crossing guards with school districts.
d. 175: Monthly report for March 1978 - Utilities Department, Electrical
Engineering Division.
e. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of May 10, 1978.
f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of May 10 and May 17, 1978.
go 105: HACMAC - Minutes of May 9, 1978.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance
with recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit for the Ssbor Csr Club to conduct a dance at the Martin
Recreation Center in La Palma Park on June 23, 1978, from 9:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M.
(Andrew Pizano, Applicant)
4. 144: A.H,F.P RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATIONS: The following A.H.F.Po Right-of-
Way Certifications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the
City Engineer:
a. A.H.F.P. Project No. 859, Orangewood Avenue from Ninth Street to Euclid
Street.
b. A.H.F.P. Project No. 908, Nohl Ranch Road Phase 1, from Anaheim Hills Road
to 761 feet west of Imperial Highway.
MOTION CARRIED. Council Members Kaywood and Kott temporarily absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-350 through
78R-358, both inclusive, for adoption, in accordance with reports, recommenda-
tions and certifications furnished each Council Member, and as listed on the
Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-3.50: A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (La Palma, Ltd.;
Dale E. Fowler (2); Las Tiendas de Yorba; Frederich Ambuehl, et ux; Tri-Way
Investments; William W. Lafferty; Ruth A. E. Nelson)
174: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-3~1: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NEcEssITY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - AREAWIDE WATER SYSTEM - PROJECT AREA IIL, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 58-4864-683-49-0300. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE
INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened
June 29, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
78-661
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P,M,
164: RESOLUTION NO 78R-~: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA AVENUE--
TUSTIN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
10-4309-731-16-0000. 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 June 29, 1978,
2:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-353: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENTS. (Public Hearing to be held June 20, 1978, 3:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-354: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENTS. (Public Hearing to be held June 20, 1978, 3:00 P.M.) (77-20A)
170: RESOLUTION NO, 78R-355: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF
NOHL RANCH ROAD, EAST OF ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD.
1~0: RESOLUTION NO, 78R-356: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF STONYBROOK STREET AT 2736 AND 2746 WEST STONYBROOK STREET, CITY
OF ANAHEIM.
151: RESOLUTION NO, 78R-~7: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE' CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENTPERMIT AND AUTHOR-
IZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH ROBERT P.
WARMINGTON CO.
158: RESOLUTION NO, 78R-358: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A CORPORATION GRANT DEED FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS CITY
PROPERTY (GENERALLY LOCATED AT ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND RAMPART STREET) TO SUNSET
CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
GRANT DEED.
Roll Call Vote (Resolution Nos~ 78R-350 to 78R-358, both inclusive):
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-350 through 78R-358, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Council Members Kaywood and Kott returned to Council Chambers (6:22 P.M.)
78-662
Qit~ Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:30 P.M,
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held May 8, 1978, pertaining to the following applica-
tions as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council informa-
tion.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO 77-78-57: Submitted by Frank and Maria Pagliari, Francis
snd Angelina Nanci and Joseph Mancini, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RS-7200 on property located at the southeast corner of Savanna Street and Marian
Way.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-92, granted
Reclassification No. 77-78-57.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 1829: Submitted by Joseph M. and Mary M. Anton
to permit a tire sales and installation facility on CL zoned property located on
the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, with code waivers of:
(a) minimum number of parking spaces; and (b) minimum setback landscaping.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-98, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1829.
~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1830: Submitted by La Palma East Properties to
permit an automobile radiator shop on ML zoned property located at 3921 East
La Palma Avenue, Unit H.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-99, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1830.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1832: Submitted by Sioux Honey Association to
permit a lumberyard on ML zoned property located at 511 East Katella Avenue, with
code waivers of: (a) requirement that all lots abut a public street; (b) minimum
number of truck parking spaces (denied); and (c) minimum site screening.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-102, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1832 in part.
5. VARIANCE NO 2736 - TERMINATION: Submitted by John R. Townsend, requesting
termination of Variance No. 2736, to establish an automobile upholstery shop on
property located at 3174 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-104, terminated
Variance No. 2736.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2875 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Donald J. Hess, request-
ing an extension of time to variance No. 2875, to continue an automotive repair
use which includes engine overhaul; property located at 1075 North Harbor Boule-
vard.
The City Planning Commission granted a ninety-day extension of time.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1708 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Clyde C.
Carpenter, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1708,
to construct an automobile service station with various code waivers on property
located east of Anaheim Hills Road, and north of Nohl Ranch Road.
78-663
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May )0, 1978. 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission granted a one year extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1708.
~. RECLASSIFICATION NO, 77-78-48 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by
David W. Hook requesting approval of specific plans for first construction phase
for Portion B of proposed CO zoned property located west of Rampart Street, south
of Orangewood Avenue, to construct a three-story office building.
The City Planning Commission approved said specific plans.
9. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9750 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLOT PLAN, ELEVATIONS AND
FLOOR PLANS: Submitted by Walter H. Coursen, requesting approval of specific
plot plans, floor plans and elevations to establish a 68-1ot, 66-unit RS-HS-IO,O00
(SC) zoned subdivision on property located between Imperial Highway and Anaheim
Hills Road, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved said specific plot plans, floor plans and
elevations for Tentative Tract No. 9750.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO, 77-78-58 AND VARIANCE NO, 3009: Submitted by Robertshaw
Fulton Controls Co. for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML on property located
at 1601Clementine Street with code waiver of required site screening to construct
an industrial complex.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-93 and PC78-94
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-58 and Variance No. 3009 respectively, and
further granted negative declaration status from the requirement to prepare an
E.I.R.
The above reclassification and variance were removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion and upon learning that the location is not within the area proposed
for the Haster Street overcrossing, the City Council took no further action,
therefore sustaining the action taken by the City Planning Commission.
VARIANCE NO, 3010: Submitted by Ireneo G. and Emelita A. Munoz to establish a
commercial use in a residential structure on proposed CL zoned property located at
924 East Lincoln Avenue, with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-95, granted
Variance No. 3010 and ratified the Planning Director's categori~al exemption
determination.
The above item was removed from the Consent Calendar to indicate that Councilman
Roth would abstain from any discussion or action taken on the matter. The City
Council took no further action, therefore sustaining the action taken by the City
Planning Commission.
78-664
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MiNUTES - May 30, 1978, 1:)0 P,M,
~ARIANCE NO. 3011: Submitted by Roger Pannier, et al, to convert an existing
ll6-unit apartment into a condominium project on RM-1200 zoned property located
at 1230 South Euclid Street with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commissio~ pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-96, granted
Variance No. 3011 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
Review of the action taken by the City Planning Co~mission was requested by
Councilwoman Kaywood and public hearing set for June 20, 1978, at 3:00 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 1826: Submitted by James P. and Phyllis J. Crawford
to expand an existing recreational vehicle park by establishing a tenting
facility on C-R zoned property located at 1343 South West Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Reso%ution No. PC78-100, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1826 and granted negative declaration status from
the requirement to prepare an E.I.R.
Review of the action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested by
Mayor Seymour and public hearing scheduled June 20, 1978, 3:00 P.M.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9821 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLOT PLAN, FLOOR PLANS AND
ELEVATIONS: Submitted by Walter H. Coursen, for approval of specific plot plans,
floor plans and elevations to establish a 21-lot, RS-HS-IO,O00(SC) zoned aubdivi-
sion on property located south of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Solomon Drive.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved the specific plot plans, floor
plates and elevations.
The above item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discuasion and correction
to page 14-G of the Staff Report was noted, indicating the net density should read
"2.8 units to the acre", rather than 28.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
ORDINANCE NO 3846: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3846 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-25, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYeS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and SeymoUr
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3846 duly passed and adopted.
78-665
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES ' MaY 30. 1978. 1:30 F.M.
ORDINANCE NOS, ~86) THROUGH 3867: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance Nos. 3865
through 3867, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO, 386~: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.420 OF T~E ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING
RESTRICTED TO FACILITATE STREET SWEEPING. (Certain portions of Alberta, Bush,
Cypress, Rose, Sycamore, Vine and Wilhelmins Streets)
ORDINANCE NO, $866: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-51, RS-5000)
O.~DINANCE NO. $867: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(85), ML)
139: ANTI-OBSCENITY INITIATIVE PETITIONS: Councilman Roth reminded council
Members that he had s supply of the Citizen Initiative Petitions regarding restor-
ing control of anti-obscenity laws to local governments available in his office.
RECESS: Councilman Seymour moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. councilman Kott seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:00 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-38 - REHEARING: Application by
Robbie Kaufman and James Norman Morgan, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to
CO on property located at 800 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission granted Reclassification No. 77-78-38 (PC78-25).
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Kott
on March 7, 1978, and public hearing scheduled for April 4, 1978, at which time
the negative declaration was approved, but the Reclassification was denied by
the Council'(78R-212). A rehearing was requested by the applicant, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti stated that she had not reviewed any of the proposed changes
Mr. Rowland would be presenting. For the purposes of review, she again described
the location and surrounding land uses and outlined the findings given in the
staff report which was presented to and considered by the City Planning Commission~
Mr. James Morgan, 2255 Allview Terrace, Laguna Beach, applicant, first apologized
to the neighbors as he did not want to cause them the concerns they had. If he
did not consider the project to be first rate, he would have revised his plans
to a greater degree than he had. He also had made himself available to the resi-
78-666
City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
dents to explain what it was he proposed to do with the property. The property
had been listed on the market for two and one-half years and every proposal made
to him was something that involved much more than an office building such as
restaurants, a motel on which he had a standing offer at present if the office
building proposal should fail, car wash, etc. In each case, he felt because of
what he had been led to believe over a period of years in working with the Plan-
ning Department, that the City wanted development along Harbor Boulevard much the
same as that on North Broadway in Santa Ana.
As far as the property was concerned, Mr. Morgan did not believe the neighbors
understood that it had never been part of the subdivision. In viewing all the
easements, they came up to the property line and then cut out to Harbor and back
to Helena, but never across. It was only because of the City Council adopting
the intent to zone CO that he was put in the predicament of dividing the property.
He had not been able to get across to the neighbors that he had many options to
develop the property other than the way he proposed. He was only asking to use
the back portion of the property as a parking area and not trying to get all the
property rezoned. As he understood, he could proceed with the proposal as long
as he remained on the front portion of the property fronting Harbor and developed
the rear in some other manner. In viewing Harbor Boulevard all the way from the
north part of the County to the beach, it was obvious that it was a commercial
street. Mr. Morgan then elaborated on photographs posted on the Chamber wall showing
some developments presently existing on Harbor within a 2-block radius of his
property. He repeated the offer he had to put a service station on his property,
which he turned down, as well as a proposal by the Chamber of Commerce for a
visitor information bureau which would have generated much more traffic than the
proposed use. He then reviewed the commercial uses existing in the immediate
vicinity.
Mr. Morgan was aware that his neighbors were concerned about their neighborhood
which he conceded was a beautiful one and he commended them on the manner in which
it was maintained. He pointed out however that there were other areas in the
vicinity where peoples' home were just as important to them where commercial
uses on Harbor backed up to their property. Having allowed that type of zoning
north and south on Harbor on both sides, the City in not permitting him to develop
would result in spot zoning along that portion of Harbor. It was obvious that
the property would have to go to some type of office-commercial use or low density
use as he was proposing.
Mr. Morgan then elaborated on some of the options open to him in developing the
building-(see minutes of April 4, 1978) at the conclusion of which he emphasized
that what he proposed to do would be an improvement over many of the things already
done in the area. Relative to the back portion of the propertys he believed it
was totally unreasonable for anyone to expect him to build new single-family
dwellings thereon, especially since that property had never been part of the tract.
He could move the old house already existing on the front portion t~ the back,
remodel it and rent it out, but the type of rental would be for an antique shop
or other type of business. He could also move in a couple of add-ons or request
a variance and ask to put four units on the property that would make the land pay
for itself if at all possible. Such alternatives would preclude him from develop-
ing the front portion of the property as he would like. He maintained it was much
better to construct a building to the front and place the parking in the rear.
From the photographs, he then pointed to 4 existing buildings in order to give a
78-6~7
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
feeling for the type of building he was trying to create along with similar land-
scaping that would be a buffer to protect the neighborhood. The building height
would be approximately the same as that of the Police Department building and a
little higher than the old building on the property. Thus, from the standpoint
of the neighbors view, the height would be negligible by the time the landscaping
was installed.
Mr. Dan Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, explained that
they reviewed their plans since the last meeting to ascertain if they could offer
the neighborhood any additional amenities. It was concluded that very little could
be done except for the following which he pointed to from the display plan which was
the same as that presented to the Planning Commission. They moved some parking at
the two rear corners of the parking lot and replaced it with landscaping and pro-
posed a "No Right Turn" sign at the lot exiting onto South Street. The off-set and
in-set program was still retained with trees to match those existing in the area.
Although they could eliminate one story from the building, it would serve no useful
purpose to do so because the same area would still be needed for parking although
of a lesser density. As previously pointed out, a solid 6-foot masonry wall would
cover the periphery of the project, and there was no way people would have reason-
able access to the building if they parked to the rear of the lot since there was
sufficient parking on site. He then explained the traffic pattern through the lot.
Concentrating the access to the signalized intersection, he emphasized there was no
point of destination discernable from a traffic standpoint that was easterly of the
project on South Street whereas the freeway was to the west and Harbor to the north
and south.
Mr. Rowland spoke to Mr. Morgan's thesis relative to splitting the property providing
a 2-story building fronting on Harbor and also providing for adequate (no variance)
parking. If the remaining property were split to RM-2400, 2 double units could be
built to the rear on the proposed parking site with 4 driveways backing onto Helena
Street. Such a proposal would generate more traffic--10 trips a day according to
the City Traffic Engineer, whereas there would be none under the PrOposal since no
access would be provided onto Helena Street. Another alternative as broached by
Mr. Morgan would be to relocate the old house on the property to the rear and sell
it as a do-it-yourself improvement along with a move-on of one of the houses for
sale in the northwest portion of the City. That would be the only way single-family
residential could be located economically on the site. Although it was not in his
area of expertise, from economic forecast, such a plan would decrease the value of
the property to a great extent. Property to the north in the Project Alpha area
was being assembled into useable sites. Now consideration was being given to
disassembling the subject property located in the same community where money was
being spent to develop property into developable sites. The economics would be
fairly disasterous not to mention the logic of such an activity.
Mr. Rowland then reviewed the building elevation plans and described its charac-
teristics, pointing out that the rear of the building was more complex giving a
better elevation to view by the neighbors to the rear than a street scene.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposed project.
Mr. Jerry Grotley, World Travel Bureau, owners of property directly across the
street to the west of the project, stated that their proposed building on that
site was going to look like that lust described by Mr. Rowland although a 1-story
configuration. They were very much in favor of the applicant's proposal in that
it was a "clean" looking facility with good landscaping. He also favored the
78-668
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
concept of the structure being located on Harbor Boulevard with parking to the
rear. The amenities offered would be superior to having a number of older houses
to the rear drawing more people to the neighborhood. He reiterated that they
favored Mr. Morgan's project.
W. W. Morningstar, attorney, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, stated that he was born
in Anaheim, had an office 3 blocks to the north of the subject property and was
interested in Anaheim's development. He considered the project to be a particularly
handsome development, not only benefiting Harbor Boulevard, but also compatible
with and a buffer to the residential areas backing up to it, and it involved no
weekend use. Such developments should be encouraged and used as a model for other
developments along that street. He recommended that the City Council grant Reclassi-
fication No. 77-78-38.
Mr. Jack Butterfield, 636 Sunflower, Placentia, stated that he was in real estate
and worked in downtown Anaheim. At present, there was a program to beautify the
downtown area and there was going to be a certain amount of "boot strap" effect
on all surrounding areas with logical upgrading on both the north and south of
the main artery of Anaheim, Harbor Boulevard. The alternatives shown by Mr. Morgan
and some of the photographs, in his opinion, were not nearly as attractive as what
he conceived he (Morgan) was proposing for the City of Anaheim.
Mrs. Anderson, 3-year resident/owner of 726 South Harbor (northeast ~orner of Harbor
and South), stated that she was probably the closest neighbor to the subject property.
It was only from the south side of her property that the old existing devastated
derelict building could be seen; it was an eyesore and useless. When looking at
the building from Helena Street, all that could be seen was a cluster of trees
almost blocking the view of the old house sitting there. She would be extremely
happy to have a nice 3-story commercial building on the site. Mrs. Anderson
continued that from her kitchen window, while preparing her evening meal, she
kept a close watch on the traffic that was supposed to jam-up on South Street at
the Harbor signal. The signal was fast and she failed to see any traffic backed
up to Dickel Street as was stated at the previous Council meeting. She reiterated
she would enjoy a new building and parking facility on the site as proposed.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor of the project, the
Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition.
Mrs. Dorothy Fassel, 843 South Helena Street, resident since 1951. She referred
to petitions already submitted signed by an overwhelming majority of the residents
in the area on whose behalf she was speaking in opposition to the 3-story office
building just as she had at the previous meeting. She again reiterated all of
the points brought forth at that time (see minutes of April 4, 1978, Page 78-389,
Numbers 1 through 10). Mrs. Fassel continued that the property'which was purchased
12 years prior had not been maintained or improved, but allowed to deteriorate
perhaps with the thought that anything would be acceptable as an i~provement to
the area. In concluding, Mrs. Fassel submitted photographs showing the long back
up of traffic during rush hours of west bound traffic along South Street waiting
for the traffic light at Harbor. She urged the Council to give higher priority
to the many long-time residents of the area over that of a single commercial
venture.
Mr. Tim Berry, 707 South Helena Street, stated that having recently moved into
the neighborhood they very much enjoyed living there. It was very well kept
as was the street directly affected by the project. He was concerned about the
78-669
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
future of the neighborhood relative to the attempt to rezone a section of the
subject property for the proposed project. When an area was rezoned for business,
the idea was to keep rezoning so that businesses could sprawl out onto Harbor and
this could put his home in a precarious position for the future. If his area was
rezoned to accommodate a project such as being proposed, they would be out of a
home, or other projects could be proposed on either side thereby squeezing out
their interest in the neighborhood and they would watch it turn into'a half street
with businesses on one side. Re was too fond of the community to see this take
place. He was not against progress, but in favor of maintaining and preserving
a good residential area and hopefully some other type of arrangement could be made
for businesses along Harbor that would not impact the area to such an extent.
Mr. Jim Langford, 817 South Helena, stated that he believed none of the people
in the area felt that the proposed building was anything other than a beautiful
one, but not the type that should be suggested for the subject location. There
were other ways to develop the property than the alternatives given. One of the
photographs on the wall depicted a building similar to the one proposed that could
be built on the subject parcel leaving the back portion in its current status
(McIntyre Photo Building). It would not be of the magnitude of the current
project, but that was perhaps the essence of the problem since the very magnitude
of the proposed project was bound to have a significant impact on the neighborhood.
Such arguments that a Jack-in-the-Box or other like restaurants or service stations
could be built on the property were not viable arguments because he did not-believe
the Council would permit those kinds of developments at that location. He emphasized
that the long-term residents of Anaheim should have priority over the venture which
was primarily of a commercial nature. He also disagreed with the contention that
the property facing Helena could not be properly developed as single-family residences.
The point was made several times that the economics would not favor that, but he
maintained the community was not necessarily obliged to approve projects that made
ecoDomic sense or provided profit for a particular venture. If the 3 lots were
subdivided and sold, homes consistent with those existing in the area could be
built on that property in a short period of time. It was not necessary to bring
in homes from other parts of town and the suggestion indicating that was the only
way to develop the property was not valid.
It was confirmed that the building Mr. Langford favored as an alternative (McIntyre
Photography) was designed by Mr. Rowland.
Mr. Robert Routh, 842 South Helena (27-year resident), stated that one of the
principal arguments that Mr. Morgan and his associates seemed to be making con-
cerning the disposition of his property was that the City Council was obligated
to regard his proposal in such a way as to guarantee him a favorable return on
his investment. He surmised this to be so because of paragraph'5 in Mr. Morgan's
letter of April 11, 1978, requesting the rehearing (made a part of the record).
Mr. Routh then read a prepared statement giving reasons surrounding the opposition
of the neighborhood including some philosophical aspects of the matter. Some of
the major points were as follows: the neighborhood did not feel'that they were
obligated to assist Mr. Morgan in making a return on his investment; another
solution should be sought such as dividing the property into 2 parcels as it was
in 1962; a decision could be made in an instant, and that decision could change
a residential area to commercial; Mr. Morgan and associates did not live in the
neighborhood and while he (Morgan) professed concern, his past actions in relation
to the deteriorating state in which he left his property did not inspire trust in
78-670
City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
his future plans. Mr. Routh stated they hoped their simple request to have their
neighborhood remain as it was would not be out-voted by the influence of architects,
lenders, builders, investors and real estate agents. They were not against progress,
but felt it time to redefine that word.
Adrian Benedict, 816 South Helena, stated they were all aware that Harbor was
zoned commercial and they had no objection to a commercial building being con-
structed on Harbor and South. Their only concern was relative to the 800 block
of South Helena and that it retain its residential status. Almost one-half of
the residents living on that block were 25-year residents, some longer, and the
rest were 15-year residents. It was a good, substantial neighborhood because
substantial, dependable people lived there. It was safe for the residents and
their families and a safe place for their children to play. They did not buy
their property for speculative purposes such as Mr. Morgan and Mrs. Kaufman
which was obvious because the property had never been improved in any way.
It was inconceivable that the residents on the 800 block of South Helena and
surrounding areas should be used as pawns for someone else's speculation. She
reiterated their one and only concern was to have the 800 block of South
Helena remain residential.
Helen Cherry, 852 South Helena (west side), stated they felt the City Council
was right in denying the petitioner's request for reclassification at the meeting
of April 4, 1978. There was a large group of people who purchased homes in the
area who would not have done so if they knew it was to become commercial. They
believed it to be a good place for adults and children to live. The homeowners
were established in the area first and thus, should have every consideration, not
just 2 or 3 people who wanted their way. Other people should not make money to
the detriment of the people in the neighborhood and now was the time to keep the
neighborhood the way the long-time residents wished it to be.
Bernadette Heinz, 852 South Helena (resident at that address since 1955), stated
that she opposed the request by the owners of the land to revert it back to
commercial status especially for a 3-story building. She did not understand why
they were going through the matter again when the project had been denied previously.
She maintained the proposed building would be rather destructive to their beautiful
tree-lined street; traffic would be an element of pollution as well as noise. She
emphasized the fact that the neighborhood was a very compact unit and many of the
families were life-long friends. They did not want to see their neighborhood
destroyed.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor asked
the applicant if he wished to make a summation.
Mr. Morgan then commented as follows: from the list of signatures submitted on the
petition in opposition (126), he plotted all those in favor of the project on a
map of the vicinity and made a copy for the City Council. Ail the people in the
su~rrounding area with the exception of one person signed a petition favoring the
proposal. Thus, the people in the immediate vicinity were in favor and not concerned
with the project at all as evidenced by those homes colored in green on the map of
the area. The person on the corner of Helena and South Street, although she signed
the petition against the project, indicated that she would not be remaining there
and she did not care what happened. Of the people on South Street, no one objected
to the proposed building. Mr. Morgan elaborated further relative to the sentiment
of those in the area, his main thrust being that the majority of the people who
78-671
qitS Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
signed the petition in opposition and those complaining would not be affected by
the project because they were not within close proximity to the property. Bernadette
Heinz and her sister at 852 South Helena, as well as Mrs. Benedict at 853, were not
even on the map presented. Mr. Morgan continued that he, too, could have obtained
approximately 1,000 signatures of those in favor, but they would be of no import if
those signatures were obtained from someone at the Bank of America or Wells Fargo
Bank in the complex just to the north on Harbor such as was done in this case.
Mr. Morgan then relayed some of the comments given by neighbors in discussing the
project which he believed relevent, none of whom suggested how he should develop
his property: "the only thing I will be satisfied with is if you put a lawn in
and maintain it; I really do not care what you do with the property--the only
thing I'm concerned with is that I do not want my house to become commercial;
if you can get an agreement with the City that my house will not be commercial,
I do not care what you do; I realize the property should be developed in one unit,
but I figure if we can stall for another year or so, that is fine with me. That
is all I want to do and the longer the better." Relative to the comments that he
bought the property for speculation, Mr. Morgan stated he bought it before the
City rezoned it. He had been in touch with the Council over the years and heard
on numerous occasions that they wanted a nice development along Harbor all the
way from Lincoln to Disneyland. He maintained his project would be just that, as
well as being a buffer to the neighborhood, while having very little'impact on the
area. Mr. Morgan also took issue with the claim that traffic backed up on South
Street. Ninety percent of the time it carried very little traffic as could be borne
out by traffic studies done by them and the City. He then recounted a similar
development that he proposed located at the corner of Euclid and Crescent (Keystone
Savings) described at the April 4, 1978 meeting which did not prove to be a detriment
to the surrounding neighborhood. A similar situation was the request to block off
Westmont Street when the Broadway Shopping Center (Anaheim Plaza) was being developed.
It was not granted and the area did not reflect any adverse effects.
In concluding, Mr. Morgan stated that he was not proposing that anyone else's
property go commercial. He did believe it was inevitable that Harbor would develop
into something commercial, and if he submitted something that was not commercial,
it would not be approved. He emphasized the primary people that would be concerned
with his project indicated approval of it because they were aware that something
less desirable could be proposed. For that reason, he respectfully requested
that Reclassification No. 77-78-38 be granted.
Mr. Dan Rowland referred to an exhibit displayed on the Chamber wall showing the
traffic pattern existing on Harbor and South Street relative to points of destina-
tion from the project. He maintained that it became obvious when looking at the
site plan that the building would not have any impact on traffic east of the alley
off Harbor (east side). He reiterated as a point of origin there was no discern-
ible point of destination easterly of the project except State College Boulevard
which was many stop signs away so as to attract nothing but casual~traffic. Mr.
Rowland then elaborated upon the projected traffic patterns which would occur when
egressing from the property as outlined on the exhibit, as well as the effect the
signalization at Harbor and South Street and Harbor and Vermont would have relative
to the project. He also noted that as borne out by the City Traffic Engineering
study, the traffic on South Street both east and west of Harbor had been declining
in volume for the past 3 years.
78-6?2
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rowland also spoke to the possible rezoning of the property on Helena Street
as suggested. He stated that there was not enough room for 3 lots on that site,
but room for only 2 buildable areas. Thus, if the property were zoned RS-7200,
a variance would be necessary because the maximum 2 lot sizes would be 6,900
square feet or 3 percent less than Code allowed. It could be zoned RS-5000, but
as well, only 2 parcels could be accommodated. The other proposal as previously
broached was for RM-2400 which would allow 2 lots only with 2 double-dwelling
units. When Mr. Morgan acquired the property, he was promised by the CO ordinance
as written that the City of Anaheim was encouraging the development of property in
his area on this specific piece of property. Thus, he was not coercing the City,
but accepting a promise in writing as represented by the ordinances that the
community wanted to encourage development of this sort proposed.
The property to the north was the subject of an area development plan, and if
anyone wanted to know what was planned over the years for Harbor Boulevard,
they could do so by going to the City Planning Department. The area development
plan stopped at South Street because the subject property was ideal, all in one
piece, never having been subdivided and not necessary to assemble. Therefore,
no area was indicated on the development plan south of South Street. Mr. Rowland
emphasized that the program presented was entirely in conformance to the zone with
no variances; the development on the subject property was appropriate in mass,
scale and texture just as the McIntyre project although that was a much smaller
and constrained site; if the property was zoned any other way than that being
suggested, variances would have to be granted because the buildable size would
be reduced to lesser than that required for the CO zone. Whatever the judgment,
Mr. Rowland urged that Mr. Morgan be given his development privileges and rights
on the property. If however they developed any other way, he suggested that the
variances that would be necessary be recognized and accommodated at this time.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Seymour explained that he shared the concern at the previous public hearing
relative to egress from the property onto South Street creating an additional
traffic burden to the neighborhood. In spite of Mr. Morgan's picture showing
no vehicles backed up on South Street and the data furnished by the Traffic
Engineer, the picture submitted by the residents indicated that, in fact, the
problem did exist. In a conversation he had with Messrs. Rowland and Morgan,
the impression he received was that they were going to alleviate the problem by
permitting ingress only from South Street along with the installation of spike
restrictors to eliminate the possibility of egress onto South Street. However,
the proposal presented was a'~ight tur~' only sign which he did not believe was
a solution.
Mr. Rowland explained that the Mayor was correct regarding the conversation, but
after an objective analysis of the traffic, they concluded that they would be
c~eating more problems for the City than the City could live with. He agreed
that traffic conditions were somewhere between the photographs submitted (residents
and applicant) and undoubtedly traffic did back up on the street otherwise there
would be no need for the signal, but that traffic cleared signal to signal. If
they did adopt the plan as articulated by the Mayor as an expedient, he believed
78-673
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
that either the applicant, Traffic Engineer or Police Department would be petition-
ing the Council within a year to eliminate that traffic hazard on South Street.
It was not a matter of traffic volume, but where it was interjected into the
traffic stream. Mr. Rowland continued that there was a way to solve all traffic
problem as outlined to keep people from using Helena Street for anything other
than going to their homes and one which perhaps had been suggested by planners
before--the installation of a knuckle on Hampshire Street at Helena Street, thus
creating an entirely self-contained residential area. This could be done by
relinquishing the easement rights to the property owners on the north and south
side of the street. That solution would work because he believed he knew who
owned the property on both sides of the street where the knuckle would be installed,
and that owner would be pleased with such a proposal. The proposed building could
not create volumes in excess of those planned for the streets and intersection.
At the conclusion of discussion relative to traffic between Mayor Seymour and
Mr. Rowland, the Mayor asked if anyone had questions of either Mr. Rowland or
Mr. Morgan; there were none.
Councilman Roth stated that most people in the Chamber audience knew that he
supported the project at the prior meeting although he did appreciate the concern
of the single-family residents in the area, he was also a strong believer of
property rights and as he indicated before, he had to be realistic. He was
concerned about Anaheim and where it was headed relative to its growth pattern.
Thus, he believed it unrealistic to think that Harbor Boulevard was not the
most desirable and fastest growing commercial area in the City. As the re-
development area was improved and with the new civic center and large shopping
center that was going to be constructed downtown, there was no alternative but
to have a spin-off of this type of growth onto Harbor Boulevard, particularly
since it was a gateway into Anaheim. Like it or not, the march of progress
would bring with it the conversion of all the vacant properties along Harbor to
co.mmercial use and as well, the single-family residences already converted to
commercial would be gone to be replaced by commercial buildings to perhaps
10 stories high. To him, it was a real occasion to see a developer submit a
project that would not require a variance. He believed there was no alternative
to the proposal not requiring variances in that it was the highest and best use
for the property while at the same time protecting the residential area with a
fence and screening. He did not look at it as being speculative since the property
was purchased in 1966, and he maintained that in the short- and long-term, the
homeowners to the rear of the project on Helena would be the beneficiaries of a
good plan such as that proposed. Thus, he was going to support the project 100
percent again as he did previously.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a possibility through engineering that
Helena Street could be left unwidened.
Miss Santalahti explained that the Zoning Code in all commercial zones specifically
required that dedication be made in accordance with the General Plan. Helena Street
had an overall width of only 50 feet which was narrower than the normal 64 feet.
If someone said they would dedicate the additional portion needed for development,
they would have to advertise a waiver on the property in order to do so. She con-.
firmed for Councilwoman Kaywood if the residents did not dedicate, the street would
not be widened and thus would remain as is.
78-674
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated there was no doubt in his mind that the frontage along
Harbor was not only suitable, but also would be developed into commercial
property which he strongly encouraged. However, the real question relative
to the present matter was in going one more step to the east by rezoning
single-family residential to expand the proposed use. The trade-offs in a
positive vein were--a very attractive building done by a competent architect
who had the ability to give a soft touch so that the building would have a
residentially inclined flavor. In exchange, the type of zoning requested
would be imposed upon the neighborhood; personally, he would have to support
the neighborhood. He had hoped their fears relative to traffic would have
been mitigated because he believed that traffic and the possible visual intru-
sion of the project lay at the heart of the problem. He considered the small
attempt to improve the landscaping and the posting of a "no right turn" sign
at the exit on South Street only window-dressing, whereas from a practical
standpoint, these would not do anything to diminish the fears of the neighbor-
hood. He maintained that unless the Council recognized the pride of ownership
existing in that close-knit neighborhood and their feelings, they would be
turning their backs on them and could be faced in the future with a declining
neighborhood. Although Mr. Morgan gave as an example the Keystone Savings
project which was similar and had done no damage, he did not believe it to be
analagous to the present situation. As well, relative to Westmont Street, the
traffic generated from West Street to Anaheim Plaza had not helped the single-
family residences on Westmont and those homes would sell for less m6ney because
they were located on that street in comparison to those located just off of that
thoroughfare.
In concluding, the Mayor stated that he had not seen any evidence brought forth
that he hoped might be presented as a result of the letter submitted by the
petitioners dated April 11, 1978, requesting the rehearing: (1) it was stated
that there would be some people who would speak in favor which was done; (2)
new evidence was to be brought forth that could convince the Council otherwise;
all that he had seen was a "no right turn" sign and an attempt at improved
landscaping; (3) New evidence that those speaking in opposition to the applicant's
petition totally misrepresented the impact; he had not seen that; (4) Two Council
Members came in late at the prior meeting and thus did not receive the benefit
of the full hearing; a full hearing was being held this evening; and (5) Denial of
the application resulted in severe and extreme hardship because alternate uses of
the property would result in the value being reduced in half; if a bad purchase
was made 12 years prior to the point where the applicant was now hurting to
develop, that should not be a concern of the Council. Thus, as one member of
the Council, he did not see any justification for granting the request for
the reclassification.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor stated that on th~ parcel to the
rear, he would develop something that was consistent with the neighborhood such
as creating a buffer with single-family residences even if variances were involved;
p~rhaps smaller lot sizes of 5,000 square feet. He explained that in the past,
the Planning Commission and the Council usually upheld a 20-foot greenbelt buffer
between residential and commercial use. That was not obtainable in this case since
the density of the office building would have to be decreased which would result
in the need for a variance on parking, and he doubted that the Council would want
to grant a parking variance.
78-6~5
City Hall, Anaheim) California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 30) 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the two parcels adjoining the subject
property were in favor of the project; the City Clerk confirmed that the
property owners in question signed both petitions for and against.
Councilman Kott first congratulated both Messrs. Rowland and Morgan on the
building which he considered to be beautiful and proper for the Harbor site.
The decision to be made was a most difficult one, but he found himself agreeing
with the Mayor in favoring the property owners. They had been in that neighbor-
hood for some time and considered the project to be an intrusion for whatever
reason into their properties, homes and life styles. He pointed to an example
of a similar situation which occurred on State College Boulevard which was a
request to convert a home to an office. The surrounding residents were
adamant in their opposition to it and the Council conceded to the policy of
neighborhood preservation. He thus was applying the same principle to the
present situation and his sentiments were with the neighborhood.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she was in a dilemma relative to the matter.
If the Harbor frontage was commercial, there were a number of very unpleasant
uses'that could be initiated without obtaining permission from the Council. The
Mayor noted that the uses Mr. Morgan had previously noted would require Council
approval.
Thereupon, Miss Santalahti summarized that commercial office uses and uses such
as antique stores or modified resale-type functions would be allowed, but a
drive-through restaurant would require a conditional use permit. A coffee shop
would be allowable, but would have to be contained in an office building.
At the request of Councilwoman Kaywood, City Attorney Hopkins read from the Code
the uses that would be allowed in the CO zone.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that the parking lot in the proposed use would
not be used on evenings and weekends and with a wall, trees and a good looking
building on Harbor, there would be less noise. She gave a recent example where
the Council permitted a 2-story office building on a site which had been a service
station and in checking door-to-door with the people living behind the project,
she was surprised to find that the residents favored the project because it would
buffer noise.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not part of the Council when the matter was
first considered, but since had spoken with the applicant, architect and a
number of residents who had contacted him. He had yet to hear one resident
criticize the project in terms of the building, its beauty, location and what
it would do for Harbor Boulevard. Until tonight he had not heard any strong
criticism relative to traffic. The criticism he had heard came from the people
who owned homes on Helena south of the project; their basic concern being that
their property at some future date would be taken for a commercial.development
fa-cing on Harbor. If that were the case, the decision had to be made as to
whether approval of the project would result in a homeowner on Helena south of
the project and on the west side having their properties threatened with attempted'
reclassifications.
78-676
CitS Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 30~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt continued that he was concerned in that the 126 signatures
on the homeowners' petition spread far afield. There was one gentleman on
Dickel who signed and he (Overholt) asked how Dickel would be impacted; the
answer was that they just did not want the project.
In concluding, Councilman Overholt stated that he believed the traffic problem
could be solved and he was not convinced that Helena was going to be impacted.
He was convinced however that South Street was not as highly traveled as indi-
cated by the homeowners' pictures, nor as lightly traveled in the applicant's
picture. He was trying to sift through the advocacy on the part of both;
on the one hand he placed himself in the position of the applicant who purchased
the property, which property was not a part of the subdivision, and on the other
the position of a resident wherein on many occasions he had spoken for the people
in such matters. With the foregoing in mind, he would vote to approve the request
for reclassification and maintained that over the long term the people would be
proud to have the type of project proposed located at that corner.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a resolution of denial of
Reclassification No. 77-78-38 and reiterated the concerns previously expressed
as the basis for his opposition.
A vote was taken on the resolution offered denying the reclassificat.ion and
failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-359 for adoption authorizing the
preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone to CO as granted by
the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-359: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (77-78-38, CO)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Kott and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-359 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Wednesday, May 31, 1978,
10:00 a.m., to the Huntington Beach Room of the Anaheim Convention~Center.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:22 P.M.
~NDA' D. ROBERTS, CI~ CLERK