1978/07/2578-9/49
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
POLICE CHIEF: Harold Bastrup
POLICE DETECTIVE: Jim Watkins
AUDIT SUPERVISOR: Young Choi
STAFF AUDITOR: Gary Huniu
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Bill Vasquez
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an invocation, a moment of silence was observed.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
101/123: LOS ANGELES RAMS MOVE TO ANAHEIM STADIUM IN 1980: Mayor Seymour
stated that he wanted to take under consideration as the first item of business
the movement of the Los Angeles Rams to Anaheim and the development to take place
concurrent with that move. He reported that over the past months, as the Council
was aware, the City's negotiating team had been working with the Rams organization
and with Cabot, Cabot and Forbes relative to finalizing a letter of intent and an
agreement to agree, covering the expansion of Anaheim Stadium with the Rams as a
new tenant at the facility, as well as the development of some 95 peripheral acres
to the Stadium. The object of the negotiations was to enter into an agreement
which would expand the present Stadium facility to 70,000 seats at a cost of approx-
imately $22 million which cost would be financed through a sale of either short-term
tax-exempt notes or through long-term bond indebtedness. The Council had been
very adamant and straightforward from the beginning that although they were excited
about the possibility of the Rams moving to Anaheim, the transaction would have to
bo structured without one penny's cost to the taxpayers of Anaheim. He was proud
to report that, as contained in the agreement to agree, that had been accomplished.
The source of the repayment for either the tax-exempt notes or the long-term bond
would be the Rams' income generated as a result of relocating'the franchise at
Anaheim Stadium. Thus, the Council could hold to its pledge that the transaction
would not be a cost to the taxpayers, nor would it be necessary to pledge any
taxpayer's assets other than the stream of future income from the Rams to secure
that financing.
~D~e Mayor continued that development of the 95 acres of peripheral real estate
~nvolved a joint venture made up of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, as well as joint
venture partner, Mr. Carroll Rosenbloom, through a trust fund. That joint venture
would actually develop the real estate and the financial terms of that real estate
development would be based upon a 75-year lease proposal on all commercial office
78-950
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
buildings and a 55-year lease proposal on other establishments such as retail,
theaters, restaurants and the like. The City's source of revenue as a result
of those long-term leases would first come from an annual payment of $8,000
p~r acre as rent on the land, and secondly, an additional $1,500 per year per
a~re generated in the form of a tax to the users of those buildings or a minimum
income of $9,500 per acre per year. Concurrent with that was an agreement on
the part of the City to sell that acreage as it was developed at the option of
~he joint venture partner. They would have the option to purchase that real
estate or continue to lease it under the terms outlined. If the option to pur-
~J~ase at a price anywhere from $80,000 to $100,000 per acre was exercised, the
$1,500 per acre revenue would continue on into the future and that increment
would be tied to the consumer price index. Considering inflation, that figure
would increase as well as the acreage price determination as to whether it would
be $80,000 or $100,000. The minimum price would be $80,000, as adjusted, on an
annual basis by the Consumer Price Index. As well, it was reasonable to expect
~J~at the City should command a return on itm value of property somewhere between
7 and 8 percent. If that 7 or 8 percent was capitalized in relationship to the
$9,500 annual per acre fee, the value would be established in the vicinity of
$]30,000 to $150,000. The formula for revenue relative to the restaurants,
commercial establishments, etc., would be on a revenue basis, but would have a
m~nimum floor of that described on a per acre basis. The entire master plan
of those 95 acres would be subject to the approval of the City. The design
and layout would have final approval of the City Council.
Relative to the lease of the Stadium with the Rams, that lease as noted in the
proposal called for a 30-year term with 3 ten-year options to renew. There was
a varied formula of income of rent to be paid by the Rams including 7.5 percent
of tickets sales, 50 percent split on concessions and a 50 percent split on
parking, as well as other additional revenues the City would realize as a result
of having the 70,000 seat facility available for approximately 354 days a year.
?'he Mayor was confident that the proposal being presented today was well within
the parameters from which the negotiating team felt the transaction could be
approached. There were some other economic benefits to be gained above and be-
~ond the technical numbers aspect of the transaction although difficult to assess
at this time. It was proposed therefor that Stanford Research be utilized to
perform a total and complete economic study to verify what was believed to be a
very large and significant economic benefit to the City of Anaheim. He thereupon
relayed the following statistics that, although raw in nature, nevertheless re-
vealed the best estimate as to some of the economic impacts that would be derived:
The total package of development was approximately $150 million. It was a rule
of thumb in the construction industry that anything constructed was 50 percent
labor, and, therefore, what the City could look. forward to in the construction
industry in Orange County, as well as the City was a payroll of some $75 million
in construction alone. At the completion of construction and the real estate
development, it was expected that some 6,000 or more new jobs would be created
which should mean an annual payroll being disbursed in the City of close to $73
mi]lion. Above the economic benefits, there was a great deal of prestige involved
~ being the home of the Rams. That, along with Disneyland, the Convention Center
and the California Angels should place Anaheim in the fore and in its rightful place
78-951
~i.tjz Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
throughout the country as a city with significant identity so as to draw even
greater numbers of people than enjoyed today. With the facility completed and
being paid for by revenues resulting from the Rams location in the Stadium, the
City would then have a facility to entertain greater numbers of visitors and
fans for whatever event that should occur at the Stadium.
In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that Mr. Larry Strenger, Counsel for the
entire transaction was present to answer any questions. As well, Mr. Ron
Labinsky and Merris Pikett, the architects involved, and Chairman of the
Board of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, Mr. Jerry Blakely were present. He then
thanked the present City Council and preceding Councils who had the foresight
to make this day possible as well as the following: Supervisor Ralph Clark
and his committee for all they did in making it very clear to Mr. Rosenbloom
and the Rams that not only were they wanted, but also that there was a great
demand for them to move their football team to the City of Anaheim; Assemblymen
Bruce Nestande and Richard Robinson who expended a great deal of effort in help-
ing to lobby against the legislation that was pending in Sacramento that may have
used taxpayers' funds as another alternative to the problem faced by the Rams in
Los Angeles; all City staff involved and especially Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-
Convention Center-Golf Director, and his staff who had the faith to believe in
the project more than a decade ago. With the guidance of staff and the persis-
tence of people like Mr. Liegler, the City was able to hold out for many proposals
made to them over the years until they captured the cream of the crop.
The Mayor then introduced Mr. Jerry Blakely--Mr. Blakely stated he was happy to
be present and with him was Mr. James Kenyon, Senior Vice President of Cabot,
Cabot and Forbes, the senior officer on the West Coast, who had worked with the
City during negotiations.
P~yor Seymour then recognized Mr. Steve Rosenbloom who was present on behalf of
the Rams Organization and expressed the Council's pleasure in having him present.
qq~e Mayor asked the Council if there were any questions they wished to ask either
Mr. Blakely or Mr. Strenger or any statements they wished to make before taking
action on the motions; there were no questions or statements.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a motion to approve a letter proposal dated
July 25, 1978, from Anaheim Stadium Associates (ASA) and the Los Angeles Rams
Football Company for the expansion of Anaheim Stadium, development of adjacent
properties, and the lease of Anaheim Stadium, and to authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute said proposal for and on behalf of the City of Anaheim. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3892 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3892: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SITE LEASE AND A FACILITY LEASE DATED
AUGUST 31, 1978, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LEASES.
Councilman Seymour moved to approve the action of Anaheim Stadium Inc. (ASI) to
have an environmental impact report prepared under the joint venture of Phillips
Brandt Reddick and L. D. King per letter of agreement and to authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
78-9~
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked who would pay for the report.
'Fhe Mayor stated that it would be paid for out of the bond issue as would all
up-front costs. Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry stated that the bond issue
would be made to the Stadium and the Stadium, in turn, would pay for the report
ou~ of the bond money. The action was merely an approval of what Anaheim Stadium
[n~::. had done.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour moved to approve the action of A.S.I. contracting for a
bond counsel services from the law firm of Mudge, Rose Guthrie & Alexander.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the action of
Anaheim Stadium, Inc., contracting for investment services from the firm of
Goldman Sachs & Company was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour moved to approve the action of A.S.I. contracting with
Stanford Research Institute International for an economic feasibility study
covering tasks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, only as stated in the letter of proposal.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~e Mayor congratulated the City Council and the citizens of Anaheim--it was
a dream come true day. He then asked Mr. Leonard Smith, President of Anaheim
Stadium, Inc., to come forward to join him in signing the agreement. While
Mr~ Smith was approaching the Council bench, the Mayor stated that the agree-
ment was signed last evening by Carroll Rosenbloom, an individual, Gerald W.
B]akely, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes,
and also again by Carroll Rosenbloom on behalf of the Los Angeles Rams Football
C~mpany. (Later in the meeting, the Mayor stated he was technically in error
Jn stating that Mr. Rosenbloom had signed both on behalf of Anaheim Stadium
A~s~ciates, as well as the Rams Football Company. In actuality, Mr. Rosenbloom
~!gned on behalf of Anaheim Stadium Associates, and Mr. Steve Rosenbloom signed
~n behalf of the Rams.) He also noted that unsigned copies of the agreement
were available for all members of the media.
Mr. Steve Rosenbloom was invited to speak relative to the Rams new home.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated the remarks regarding their feelings were covered very
we!l at the morning press meeting. The agreement was now official and, there-
fore, he thanked the Council on behalf of the Rams, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, the
architects and everyone involved. They were looking forward to the move with
gr~at excitement; their main business being to win football games. They believed
the City of Anaheim was going to help them do so. Interest had already begun and,
~n fact, they sold more season tickets to people in Orange County in the last
two days than they had in the last two months in terms of numbers. Thus, support
was already evident.
Mr. Leonard Smith stated, on behalf of the Corporation, he wanted to personally
~hank all the people who had worked so diligently on the project, and they welcomed
the Rams to the community.
78-953
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In closing, the Mayor also thanked Mr. Smith and the entire Board of Directors
who were of great help in the negotiation process and without whom the job would
~ot have been done.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes to allow the
media to clear the Chamber. (1:57 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:07 P.M.)
114: ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING: Before proceeding, the Mayor stated
it was necessary to complete the second reading of Ordinance No. 3892 relative
to the Rams' site and facility leases by Monday, July 31, 1978 at midnight.
Therefore, an adjourned regular City Council meeting would be held on Monday,
July 31, 1978, at 1:15 p.m. for a second reading of the ordinance.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"Captive Nations Weeks in Anaheim", July 16-31, 1978
Dr. Andrew J. Erbeley, one of the founders of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters
(affiliated with the organization known as The Captive Nations Organization)
accepted the proclamation. He also relayed to the Council some aspects of
Communist oppression still existing in many countries. He also noted that
there was some 120 million Christian people presently behind the Iron Curtain.
t19: INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION: The Mayor introduced a distinguished visitor
to the City, Mr. Lou Phillips, Councilman from the city of Durban in Natal, South
Africa, and presented him with a replica of the Big "A" scoreboard.
~9/135: PRESENTATION: Mr. Keith Murdoch, Chairman of the Dad Miller "100"
Committee presented the City with a check for $496.86 to cover the cost of
installation of a flag pole at the Dad Miller Golf Course in time for last
year's tournament. The Mayor thanked Mr. Murdoch and the Committee and
accepted the check on behalf of the City.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless,~after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
i~g of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION 'UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: There were no financial demands against the
City presented for the period ending July 25, 1978.
78-954
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123/177: CONCENTRATED REHABILITATION AREA - FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOW AND
MODERATE HOMEOWNERS/HOMEBUYERS IN THE CITY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 78R-465 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 1,
]978, from Executive Director Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-465: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-465 duly passed and adopted.
1.23: COb~UTER PROGRAMS IN THE MONEYMAX SYSTEM: Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 78R-466 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated
June 30, 1978, from the Director of Finance. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-466: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT WiTH
WISMER ASSOCIATES, INC. AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND RELATED MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENTS.
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-466 duly passed and adopted.
i07: 1.978 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE: Both City Manager William Talley and Assis-
tant C1ty Attorney Frank Lowry clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott relative
to the discussion in memorandum dated July 13, 1978, from the Planning Department,
Building Division (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
After a brief discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Planning Department
prepare the 1978 National Electrical Code for adoption and submit the Code to
the Council as soon as the State had adopted the 1978 Electrical Code. Councilman
Overho]t seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: TRAINING AGREEMENTS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL (C}~): Councilman Roth asked if the CHP had a program for driver education
for police officers and if so, could that be investigated.
Police Chief Harold Bastrup stated that the City's police officers did receive
drivers' education within the Police Department, but he would look into the matter
with the CHP to ascertain if such a program were offered and whether or not it would
enrich the Police Department's program, as requested by Councilman Roth.
78-955
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-467 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated July 17, 1978, from the Chief of Police. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-467: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY biANAGER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO EXECUTE
TRAINING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1978-1979.
Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Ibe Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-467 duly passed and adopted.
164/144: MAGNOLIA STORM DRAIN: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by
Councilman Roth, the Mayor was authorized to transmit a letter to the Orange
County Board of Supervisors requesting that the Magnolia storm drain from the
Santa Ana Freeway to La Palma Avenue be retained in their 1978-79 Fiscal Year
Budget as requested in memorandum dated July 18, 1978, from the City Engineer.
MOTION CARRIED.
173: PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENT - SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY: Councilman Kott
offered Resolution No. 78R-468 for adoption, authorizing a Pipeline License
Agreement with the Santa Fe Railway Company (La Palma Avenue-Tustin Avenue Storm
Drain Improvement) and authorizing payment of the $150 fee, as recommended in
memorandum dated July 19, 1978 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-468: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
A~THOffffN~'THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PIPE LINE LICENSE AGREEMENT
WITH SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. (La Palma Avenue - Tustin Avenue Storm Drain
Improvement)
Call Vote:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
declared Resolution No. 78R-468 duly passed and adopted.
ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT AWARD FOR A SPEED/ACCIDENT STUDY: After Traffic
~.~iaeer Paul Singer clarified for Councilman Kott specifically what was deter-
by the Study, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-469 for
?ti on accepting a grant of funds in an amount not to exceed $35,500 as
omm~ended in memorandum dated July 18, 1978, from the Intergovernmental
atlons Office. Refer to Resol~tior~ ~ook.
78-95~,
Ci C'~ Hail, Anaheim, Ca]ifornLa - {qOtYNCIL MINUTES - ,July 25 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-469: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A GRANT OF FUNDS FRON THE STATE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR PURPOSES
OF CONDUCTING A SPEED/ACCIDENT STUDY.
Roll (]all Vote:
AY ES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MENBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overho]t, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-469 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, said funds
were appropriated to the Traffic Engineering Program, Expenditure Account 17-263
and Revenue Account 17-3155. MOTION CARRIED.
174: HEW SPECIAL INTERGOVENMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: City
Nanager Talley explained for Councilman Kott that nothing was now being done in
the subject area, and there was no one presently on the staff who was a Senior
Human Services Specialist.
Mayor Seymour asked if the proposed recommendation was approved by the Community
Services Board. Mr. Bill Vasquez, Community Services Manager, stated that the
item had not been presented to the Board as yet.
The Mayor stated that although he was supportive of the concept proposed as
outlined in memorandum dated July 18, 1978, from the Intergovernmental Relations
Office, he was reluctant to vote favorably because the item had not been presented
to the Community Services Board. He directed staff to seek the Board's approval
and comments and present them to the Council in one week.
t14: CENSURE - COUNCILMAN WILLIAM I. KOTT: Councilman Overholt stated that one
week prior, the press reported that Councilman Kott released a 16-page excerpt
~>f a confidential report submitted to the Council. He asked Councilman Kott if
~hose reports were accurate; Councilman Kott answered "Yes."
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that the Council censure Councilman
William I. Kott for publishing portions of a confidential report prepared at the
request of the Council by the City Attorney on a matter involving Office Plummer
without the authority of the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that although he was absent from
last Tuesday's Council meeting, he had the assurance of his Council colleagues
that an Executive Sesion to be held relative to the matter would be carried over
one week. Now he was informed that an Executive Session was held at which time
discussion took place on the subject matter. There had never been any doubt in
hi~ mind relative to making the Plummet report public, and he personally believed
that it was the intent of the majority of the Council from the first meeting to
make the report public. Thus, although he would have preferred that prior to the
report being made public that the Chief of Police have an opportunity to review it
and comment on it at an Executiw~ Session, from that standpoint he was sorry it had
78-957
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
been disclosed publicly. He reiterated it had been his intent to insure that
t~he entire report be made public, as well as the investigation continued and
~ompleted after the Chief had an opportunity to review the matter and respond
~ the Council in Executive Session. The Mayor was concerned that he was not
present at the time when the topic was again discussed.
~ouncilwoman Kaywood interjected and stated that the matter was not discussed
his absence; Councilman Roth confirmed that was correct.
C<~un~.~ilman Overholt emphasized that when there was a confidential report and the
~i~<~uncil chose to keep it so, no single Council Member was entitled to release all
,~r part of that report. Whether or not it would eventually be released was not
a part of his motion.
Councilman Roth stated that he would vote in favor of the motion and explained
~hat the Council did not discuss the matter when the Mayor was absent at the
July 18, 1978 meeting. It was his understanding that there was a bond between
the Council wherein they were not to release the report for two weeks, and he
supported the majority of the Council in that understanding. He was concerned
over the fact that he could not trust the word of the Council. Personally, he
was not an individual who wanted to keep matters secret, but the agreement was
~]) the report would not be released for two weeks and (2) the Chief of Police
was to respond to the report. He thus considered it a breach of trust and lack
~f integrity that the report had been released. He wanted the press to understand
t~at it was not a matter of suppression. Councilman Roth also referred to a letter
!~]~at had been received by the Council in the interim from Jack Jansen, President
~r the Anaheim Police Association (AMA), requesting that he and the APA Attorney
~e present at the time the report was to be discussed.
~ncilman Kott took issue with what had been said and stated that the agreement
'~a~ that they would wait one week and not two weeks at which time the Chief was
*~ [~e called in and the report given to him for his comments. He waited the one
w~ek and the Chief was not called in, thus, he felt it was his prerogative to make
~he release. He noted also that at the meeting, Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilmen
R~>t~h and Overholt felt that City Manager Talley was completely vindicated by the
~ort, that no deals had been made, and nothing at all was wrong. Relative to
,~ensuring, it was of no concern to him and he considered it meaningless. As well,
tl~e three Council Members were claiming a breach of confidentiality and the so-called
Attorney/Client relationship, whereas the confidentiality in the report was between
~he Attorney and the City Council. The only one who could break the Attorney/Client
r~]ationship was the Attorney.
A ~ote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No".
C~?uncilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour stated he believed it appropriate at this time since
the subject was aired publicly to move that the full and complete Plummer report
be released, received and filed, thus making it a matter of public information.
78-958
Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he would vote
against the motion, but wanted to go on record approving the release after
the Chief of Police had an opportunity to review the report.
The Mayor stated that in the best interest of the City, as well as all parties
concerned, that the Chief be given one week to review the report and in his
review be prepared to come before the Council in Executive Session one week
from today to respond so that the Council could complete the investigation.
MOTION: Councilman Roth asked what action would be taken on the request from
the APA to be present during the discussion of the report at the Executive
Session. Mayor Seymour suggested that he propose a motion. Councilman Roth
moved that the request of the APA be granted in having the President and their
attorney present at the Executive Session wherein the Plummer matter would be
discussed.
Before any action was taken, Council discussion followed for purposes of clari-
fication relative to release of the report and what procedure would be followed
up to that point. At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor reiterated that
it would have been appropriate for the Chief to have had an opportunity to review
the report and then comment to the Council, but due to the fact that it had par-
tially been made public, the Council had the responsibility to go on record as
to whether or not it was going to make the report totally public. Councilman
Overholt asked that the Mayor's original motion be amended accordingly.
Councilman Seymour was agreeable and thereupon clarified his motion as follows:
that the Chief of Police be given a copy of the full and complete report for his
review for one week and report to the Council in Executive Session; upon completion,
the report would be made public. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that the suggested action was a
facade as to who would get the report first. The Chief was in the Council Chamber
and it was his opinion that the Chief did not care whether or not he saw the report
first.
A vote was then taken on the amended motion. Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth asked that action be taken on his previous motion clarified as
follows: in addition to Chief Bastrup, that the Anaheim Police Association
President, Jack Jansen, and Association Attorney, if necessary, be invited to
attend any Executive Session wherein the Plummer case is discussed. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Mayor Seymour spoke against the motion, noting that one of the continuing problems
relative to the Police Department was that management and the APA continued to
avoid the normal, legitimate, professional procedure to be followed in the event
of a grievance. A grievance and arbitration procedure was clearly spelled out and
the Council had dealt with the question approximately a year prior regarding the
SAP issue wherein the Council determined that the normal procedure be followed. The
proposed motion would therefore violate that procedure. He did not believe it to be
78- 959
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the Council's responsibility unless they chose separately to bring in the Presi-
dent of the APA and their attorney to have a separate discussion. Otherwise, to
make the matter some type of sparring match between the Chief, APA and management
of the City would only be an example of horrible leadership. When the Council
unanimously gave the Chief of Police a vote of confidence, they were stating in
their vote that they stood behind Chief Bastrup as Chief of Police and would stand
behind the rank and file embodied in the para-military concept of the Police Depart-
ment. To do otherwise would be a disgrace.
Councilman Roth did not agree. Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry explained that
the purpose of an Executive Session was to permit the Council to confer and study a
given subject. It was not a semi-executive session where opposing parties were
brought together for private debating. The City Attorney's Office would have a
very difficult time legally justifying such a session. Councilman Roth stated
that he did not object to releasing the report to the press, but he did not be-
lieve it proper to permit one side or the other to make a determination as to
whether it was valid or invalid without the other side being present.
Mayor Seymour stated that the City Manager, the Personnel Director and the Chief
of Police were the principals in the matter.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing to motion to grant the APA request and
failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the Council be provided with the excerpt from
the report submitted to the press by Councilman Kott so that it could be compared
with the original report. Mayor Seymour noted that every Council person had a
right to that report. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that she wanted only the
excerpt that was released and the letter that went to the press with the excerpt
to check their accuracy.
MOTION: Councilman Kott stated that he would not give Councilwoman Kaywood the
requested information. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the information,
as requested, be provided to the Council.
Before any action was taken, in answer to Mayor Seymour,
F~-~ew~y-s~e~-~-~e~e~ma~-~e~-~e~d-~e~-~e-~e~-~e~-~e-s~-~e-m~ee~½
Mayor Seymour stated that he for one would ask the City Attorney for a copy of the
full report. Subsequently all Council Members asked that a copy be supplied to
them. City Manager Talley stated that since the Mayor named him as one of the
three principals involved, it would be appropriate for him to receive a copy of
the report as well, which he intended to show to no one other than the Personnel
Director.
...who stated Council could not force Councilman Kott to provide the 14-page
excerpt, Assistmnt City Attorney Frank Lowry stated that Councilman Kott would
not be required to submit the material in any case. (See minutes of November 21,
1978, Page 78- )
78-960
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CITY MANAGER
WILLIAM O. TALLEY PERTAINING TO EMPLOYMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolu-
tion No. 78R-470 for adoption amending the agreement between the City of Anaheim
and William O. Talley as City Manager giving him a 2-year contract to serve the
City as City Manager.
Before any action was taken on the resolution, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that
earlier in the day there was a beautiful example of harmony and efficiency that
could go on in the City. She wanted to see the City go forward in a positive
manner with some stability and dignity for the next two years, as opposed to the
turmoil, confusion and waste of time and energy that occurred due to the atmosphere
of suspicion, accusation, negativism and the endless, costly investigations and
witch hunts that prevailed.
Councilwoman Kaywood then clarified for the Mayor that the contract gave Mr. Talley
a 2-year term during which the witch hunting could come to an end and where the
department heads could feel secure in knowing that they were not going to have their
"heads chopped off." The contract had already been drawn and presently existed.
Councilman Overholt stated for the Mayor's information, that Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood
asked him if he would ask the City Attorney to look into the possibility of a
contract revision providing the term and that was done.
MOTION: Mayor Seymour emphasized that it would have been reasonable to have
apprised fellow Council Members of the proposed action, as well as to have pro-
vided them with a copy of the agreement prior to asking for a vote. Yet they
failed to discuss the matter with the other three members of the Council. He
thereupon moved that the matter be continued for two weeks to allow an oppor-
tunity to review the proposed amendment to the agreement, think about it and
discuss it.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for an immediate vote. The Mayor stated that a motion
for continuance would take precedence. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken on the continuance, Councilman Kott stated that the move
was obviously a plot whereby Council Members got together and decided with nhe
City Manager that the proposal was something they wanted to see done. If Counci]-
woman Kaywood felt for some reason that department heads would not have their
"heads chopped off" because of the City Manager, then it appeared to him that
there was something to hide. He represented the taxpayer of the community and
not the bureacracy and if Councilwoman Kaywood felt that he did not have the
right to question any business that involved the taxpayer, he suggested that she
reevaluate her values because she was not fulfilling her oath of office.
Councilwoman Kaywood reminded the Council that they had just gone through a situ-
ation where Councilman Kott had released something that was confidential without
consulting with anyone on the Council. As well, they had repeatedly gone through
attacks on everyone since Councilman Kott was elected two years prior, including
the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitor and Convention Bureau and the Bicentennial
Committee.
78-961
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
i~pon questioning by the Mayor, it was revealed that Mr. Talley and Councilman
R~th were also aware of the proposed amendment to the agreement. Councilman
R~th stated that he had never discussed the matter with Councilman Overholt,
with Councilwoman Kaywood, wherein he indicated he would totally support her
her proposal. He also noted that it was quite interesting during the presen-
tation earlier regarding the Rams, that the Mayor did not even acknowledge Mr.
!'~[[ey and he was the one person who had perhaps done the most and hardest work
bringing the agreement to fruition. He would thus support the resolution and
~?hasized as he had previously that he supported the administration of the City.
speaking to the motion for continuance, Mayor Seymour advised his colleagues
~ince they had taken it upon themselves to collectively or individually, uni-
~terally create an agreement with the City Manager and directed the City
~\~torney's Office to draw an agreement without having the respect to let him
!~ow what was happening, he hoped they would be respectful enough to permit two
~eks for the opportunity to review the document. It was incredulous that three
~],~ncil Members would take such an action and introduce an amendment to a contract,
original of which was not even before the Council, and immediately call for a
~re. He found it extremely disturbing, especially since he had tried to be
~raightforward, candid and honest in his dealings with the majority of the Council.
ii~uncilman Overholt stated, with due respect to the Mayor's comments, he heard
~mbers of the Council harass, intimidate, accuse of wrong doing and generally
discredit the City Manager. He had looked for justification for such behavior
~n behalf of members of the Council and could find none, and, therefore, he was
i~,~ing to vote against the motion to continue. The amendment was very simple
~d the City Attorney could explain it in minutes, and the original contract, if
i~sired, could be produced without delay. The Council could take all the time
~.~day for the Mayor to understand what it was all about, but as far as he was
~*ncerned, they were going to vote on it today.
'~te was then taken on the motion for continuance and failed to carry by the
[owing vote:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Seymour
Overholt, Kaywood and Ruth
None
Mayor noted that Councilwoman Kaywood was already voting on the proposed
~solution yet he wanted to have some time to analyze an amendment to an agree-
~?~t which he had not seen in three years. It was, however, obvious to him that
wi~ether or not he reviewed the agreement and found something he should have to
:~sagree with, it would be immaterial because the act had been completed by a
~ajority of the Council and City Manager. Although they did not do so in viola-
~ion of the Brown Act, nevertheless, three members discussed the matter individually
wXth the City Manager.
(;~>uncilman Ruth took issue with the statement made since he did not discuss the
~arter with the City Manager or the City Attorney, but only with Councilwoman
Kavwood.
78-9e 2
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 257 19787 1:30 P.M.
i:urther Council discussion followed relative to the matter (see verbatim tran-
script of this meeting on file in the Clty Clerk's Office), including the question-
lng of Mr. Frank Lowry, Assistant City Attorney, who drew the contract at the
request of Mr. Talley which was a normal procedure he bad followed in the past
at the request of division and department heads.
At the conclusion of discussion, a vote was taken on the foregoing resolution
approving the first amendment to an agreement between the City of Anaheim and
William O. Talley pertaining to employment. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-470: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND WILLIAM O. TALLEY PERTAINING TO EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.
Roil 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-470 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Kott stated that principally his "No" vote was cast because he did not
know anything about the matter, he had no information and was not able to study
it.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:45 P.M.)
]12: INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT: Mayor Seymour stated
that he wanted to offer a motion directing the City Attorney to investigate an
alleged violation of the Brown Act relative to the majority of the Council action
on the amendment to the City Manager's contract just passed. Councilman Kott
did not believe a motion was necessary, but that the City Attorney's Office would
be obliged to look into the matter and report back merely on a Council person's
request. Assistant City Attorney Lowry acknowledged that the City Attorney's
Office would act as directed.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Seymour stated that relative to his request for the
C~ty Attorney to investigate the possible violation of the Brown Act as the re-
suit of the majority of the Council action granting an extended contract to the
City Manager, the City Attorney advised him of the following: that there could
be a conflict of interest in such an investigation on his part since the City
Attorney was employed by the City Council. He suggested, therefore, that the
matter be directed to the District Attorney. Mayor Seymour stated that is what
~e intended to have done.
Mr. Lowry stated he would make such a request to the District Attorney by letter
with a copy to the Mayor asking for such an opinion from the District Attorney's
Office as soon as possible.
78-963
Hall:, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 257 19787 1:30 P.M.
i07: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Application by Valencia Leasing
requesting a permit to move an office building from 11611 Westminster Boule-
yard, Garden Grove, to 1071 North Blue Gum Street.
Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present; the appli-
~ant was present in the Chamber audience to answer any questions.
~e Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the requested House Moving Permit
~:[ther in favor or opposition; there being no response, he closed the public
~ ~l_Ilg.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-471 for adoption, granting a house
r,ov:£ng permit, subject to compliance with City codes relating to plumbing,
wiring and air conditioning, as recommended by the Zoning Division. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-471: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO VALENCIA LEASING TO MOVE AN OFFICE BUILDING
FROM 11611 WESTMINSTER BOULEVARD, GARDEN GROVE, TO 1071 NORTH BLUE GUM STREET,
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA.
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-471 duly passed and adopted.
108: CONTINUED HEARING - REVOCATION OF BINGO LICENSE NO. 1-36442 - COLONIAL
MANOR HALFWAY HOUSES7 INC.: To consider the appeal of the revocation of bingo
license issued to Colonial Manor Houses, Inc., 423 North Anaheim Boulevard,
wi~ich was ordered following an administrative hearing held May 15, 1978, in
ac~:ordance with Section 7.34.100 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
A?peal of the license revocation was filed by Larry C. Anderson, Attorney for
Colonial Manor Halfway Houses, Inc., dated June 19, 1978.
'P~e matter was then continued from the meeting of July 11, 1978, at the request
of Mr. Anderson and rescheduled this date.
A~ audit by the City was conducted of the Colonial Manor Halfway Houses bingo
,,peration under Bingo License 1-36442 for the months of November 1977 through
~ebruary 1978. As a result of the audit which was prepared in terms of a report
to the City Manager's Office on April 21, 1978, there were several allegations
of Code violations as a result of the operation of the license as follows: (1)
that the total value of pries awarded for each separate game exceeded the $250
maximum limit adopted by the Code, (2) that the profits from the bingo games
were comingled in the licensee's general account in the amount of $97,026.47 with
no documentation as to how the funds were dispersed, and (3) that the records
needed in order to determine compliance with the Code provisions were not available
to the City Auditor's staff.
78-964
~__t2~ J{all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Appearing on behalf of the applicant at the quasi-judicial hearing was Mr.
Larry C. Anderson, Attorney, Anderson & Associates, 16168 Beach Boulevard,
Huntington Beach. Those offering testimony on behalf of the appellant were
as follows: Steven Thomas, Program Director--Colonial Manor Halfway Houses,
Inc. (C~H), Jack Blackburn, Recovery Administrator CbIHH, O. B. Woods, Mental
Health Worker, County of Orange, Martin Levine, Certified Public Accountant,
Franklin Rose, President CMHH, Chuck Eagles, Administrator CMHH.
On behalf of the City, Deputy City Attorney Jack White, William T. Hopkins,
Assiatant City Manager, Gary Huniu, Staff Auditor, Young Choi, Audit Super-
visor, William O. Talley, City Manager, Jim Armstrong, Administrative Aide.
Each witness was duly sworn in by the City Clerk. Direct examination and cross-
examination of each witness followed.
A verbatim transcript of the entire proceedings performed by a licensed court
reporter from the firm of McCauly and Manning, Court and Deposition Reporters,
1630 East Palm Street, Santa Ana, ("Continued Hearing--Revocation of Bingo
License No. 1-36442, July 25, 1978, 3:30 P.M.") is referred to and made a part
of the minutes, on file in the City Clerk's Office.
At the conclusion of the four-hour hearing and in view of the testimony provided,
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-472 for adoption reinstating Bingo
License No. 1-36442 held by the Colonial Manor Halfway Houses, Inc. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-472: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REINSTATING BINGO LICENSE NO. 1-36442 HELD BY COLONIAL MANOR HALFWAY HOUSES,
INCORPORATED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
~e Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-472 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney
was directed to submit to the Council an amended bingo ordinance to properly
reflect the spirit of the Council's expression; the City Manager was also
directed to instruct the Audit Department to make regular audits of bingo
operations in the City. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (7:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:00 P.M.)
78-965
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
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, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-25 granted
Reclassification No. 77-78-38. The environmental impact report negative
declaration finding was approved by the Council on April 4, 1978, at which
time the reclassification was denied, reversing the findings of the City
iqanning Commission.
A rehearing was subsequently granted by the City Council at the request of
the applicant which rehearing was held May 30, 1978. At that time Reclassifi-
cation No. 77-78-38 was granted by the City Council.
Request for a rehearing submitted by Robert D. Routh, Spokesperson for the
resident~ was subsequently granted and rehearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing first to those requesting the rehearing.
Robert Routh, 842 South Helena, first asked those in the Chamber audience
~...~sed to the subject reclassification to stand; there were approximately 40
, dents in attendance. He then submitted photographs of the neighborhood
'ecting the atmosphere they treasured and were trying to protect. He also
~itted photographs of the property in question one of which depicted a path
~istently worn through Mr. Morgan's property. Since the last meeting, they
~nsulted with an attorney who indicated that the path which had existed
.'~?(~r 7 years made the property subject to confiscatory procedure for re-
~ing to the City as public property because of use without objection by
i~?~perty owner. Other photographs submitted depicted surrounding land
~o?ecifically com~nercial office uses. Some of the new evidence to be pre-
~ ! -~a~ going to deal with things the community believed could happen to
~ _~_roperty. As well, their contention was the property could be better
it,an that proposed by Mr. Morgan. Mr. Routh then referred to the photo-
>hs showing block wall fences in the area, many of which were defaced with
fiti, the same fate that would befall the block wall enclosing the proposed
.~ng lot facing Helena. Further, the possibility of generating noisy activity
~'~. !or could do nothing but depreciate the value of surrounding property. They
~ ~ot understand how the presence of the proposed building in their neighborhood
d ~-ffect their property in a favorable manner. Mr. Routh then suggested the
?ssible use of the rear portion of the property which was in contention would
~uses. ~]~ey wanted to see faces, not block walls and graffiti. It was their
'. rstanding that what was needed in the City were places for people to live.
would be an opportunity to accommodate three more productive families. They
not want to see a 3-story building, 70-car parking lot and block wall on their
et and he thus urged the Council to reconsider their favorable vote at the
~g of May 30, 1978 (see minutes that date) because they were concerned about
ug their neighborhood. The people should be given the chance to see what they
~d and needed in their own neighborhood.
78-966
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Dorothy Fassel, 843 South Helena, read from a prepared statement that they
were speaking of an area comprised of citizens living on Helena Street, Dickel
and Clementine who would be adversely affected by a 3-story professional office
building and its resultant impact on traffic, fumes, accident probabilities,
unsafe conditions for children and grandchildren, noise, visual intrusion, lack
of privacy and lowering of property values. It was not realistic to believe
that only people living within a radius of 3 or 4 homes in any direction would
be affected. Their petitions signed within the last two weeks contain signatures
from the area of Helena, Dickel, Hampshire and Clementine and indicated a broader
base of concern than the homes in the immediate locale. Mrs. Fassel, working
from a posted chart showing the homes in the subject area and surrounding streets,
stated that those depicted in red had all signed the petitions. She explained
how these homeowners would be affected by the project because of the traffic
pattern in the area. She did not believe the Council was familiar enough with
the area to understand the full impact of the proposed project. Most importantly
would be loss of heart and interest in the upkeep and improvement of the neigh-
borhood.
Mrs. Adrian Benedict, 863 South Helena, expressed her concern and opposition to
the proposed project. She then referred to the commercial uses which had invaded
residential areas not too distant from their neighborhood in an attempt to describe
what could happen when such uses were permitted in an already firmly established
residential area. She also referred to easement rights in effect necessitating
certain limitations relative to City power lines for those living on Helena Street.
It seemed that different easement rules were in effect for the property in question.
In closing, Mrs. Benedict emphasized that the Council's "yes" or "no" vote would
control the future, fellowship, friendliness, security and tradition of a good
number of persons, and thus, they should weigh their vote carefully.
I~onnie Hoffman, 839 South Helena, stated that she was speaking for all the children
on Helena Street. It was not fair to impose a building on a neighborhood when
they had lived there so long. There was a number of small chidren on her block
who would be endangered by the traffic resulting from the proposed project.
Bernadette Heinz, 852 South Helena, stated that she was concerned about safety
and traffic: (1) At present Harbor Boulevard was not wide enough to support
existing traffic. She questioned how it could accommodate additional traffic
generated from the proposed building. Helena, as well, could not accommodate
the overflow. She then referred to Section .024 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
covering CO Zones which stated,'~o major traffic problems would be created."
(2) They were also concerned with the westbound traffic on South Street which
progressed toward the freeway on-ramp. This traffic was exceedingly heavy and
thus they wanted to know if there were plans to widen South Street between
Anaheim Boulevard and the on-ramp. If so, the cost would be to the taxpayer and
not to Mr. Morgan. (3) Considering the expected increase in traffic, they wanted
to know if "walk" and "don't walk" signs would be installed at Harbor and South
Street or if a crossing guard was being considered for the next school session.
~ese again would be an additional cost to the taxpayer. (4) A blind spot would be
created at the corner of Helena and South Street caused by the proposed block wall.
78-967
~:itv Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
!]~ose were a few of the problems they envisioned as the result of the massive
impact of 70 cars ingressing and egressing from the proposed parking lot onto
nearby streets. In that light, Section .024 of the AMC Code Section on CO Zones
could not be ignored.
Mr. Jay Tompkin, 703 South Helena, stated that he and his wife moved to Helena
Street last November because it was quiet, clean and affordable and a place to
raise children without fear. They now feared that the City was needlessly pushing
in on their neighborhood and environment. He was also concerned that when rezoning
~ccurred in one area, it could continue to spread thereby destroying the residential
~rea. As well, he had researched the fact that an abundance of office space was,
~nd in the future would be, readily available in the City--405,000 square feet of
:,ffice space would be available in the downtown redevelopment area, 305,000 square
feet on the corner of Harbor and Lincoln; Sunset Construction informed him that
113 million square feet was to be completed in the next 3 to 4 years adjacent to
Anaheim Stadium, and the Bank of America Building, 3 blocks away, at an average
yearly vacancy of 8 to 10 percent. He did not see the need for the proposed build-
lng which would not conform to the architecture of the neighborhood such as the
architecture of the MacIntyre Building north on Harbor. He suggested that the
present old home on the property be refurbished into an office building so long
as it only affected Harbor Boulevard with the Helena side of the property re-
maining residential.
Claudia Barry, 707 South Helena, stated as young homeowners they were concerned
over property values and their homes might no longer be desired because of en-
croaching businesses. They were asking the Council to enforce their rights as
residents. Progress should be allowed to where Mr. Morgan could build whatever
he wished on Harbor Boulevard without rezoning the residential area on Helena
Street.
Barry, 707 South Helena, expressed his concern relative to rezoning to
a~:commodate commercial buildings, which action could in the future jeopardize
residential areas of Helena Street.
Mr. Jim Langford, 817 South Dickel, stated that although he did not receive a
~,~tice of the hearing because he lived on Dickel Street, from his back yard, he
~:ould see the house that presently existed on the subject property. A 3-story
building would thus be an intrusion into his yard. Alternate uses would be to
8evelop the property on the Helena side in accordance with present zoning. As
well, there were people in the community who were willing to purchase the property
t~:~ put an end to the matter. The remaining portion, in his opinion, was not
sufficient for a multi-story building, but for an attractive structure such as
the Maclntyre Building which would mean scaling the project down in scope to be in
~:onformance with the existing neighborhood. He urged the Council to maintain
the present zoning on the property, thereby preserving the rights of the residents
who had lived there for a long time and made it the kind of neighborhood it was
today.
78-968
([~_t~/ Hall..~..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Dianna Johnson, 13100 Chapman, Fullerton, stated that she did not want the
zoning turned into commercial because she wanted to restore the old house.
She stated it belonged to the Orchard Park Tract developed in 1913 which was
part of the Knudsen Ranch. The Knudsen house itself was an historical landmark
which was sold to a Mr. Julius in 1922. She had been in California for only
over a week, thus her research was not extensive. She did however want to
offer the alternative and she and her husband were willing to restore the house
to a 1920's look.
~ere being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor
asked to hear from the applicant and/or his agent.
Mr. James Morgan, applicant, 2255 Allview Terrace, Laguna Beach, stated he was
certain the Council was aware of the expense he had incurred up to this point
in total reliance upon the decisions that had been made by the Council. He be-
lieved the rehearing to be improper because the procedure did not meet with the
rules set up by the Council in their efforts to give everyone a fair hearing in
such matters. In the letter that was presented to the Council dated June 21,
1978 from Robert Routh upon which the rehearing was granted and after which he
had his project well underway, there was a noteworthy omission from Council
Policy No. 105 pertaining to rehearings as follows, "Any consideration by the
City Council of a petition for rehearing or reconsideration must be presented
not later than the immediate subsequent meeting of the City Council..." Mr.
Morgan estimated that he now had between $40,000 to $50,000 vested interest in
the subject parcel based upon the Council's previous decision granting the re-
classification at the meeting of May 30, 1978. The letter subsequently presented
and acted upon was not even presented to the Council until June 23, 1978. Further,
analyzing what was presented in the letter relative to new evidence, it would be
arbitrary and capricious for the Council to continue with the hearing just to
give an opportunity for people to state what they already stated. Basically,
the same thing had been said at both hearings (see minutes of April 4 and
May 30, 1978). In both instances, he had followed all the rules to the letter.
Mr. Morgan then proceeded to elaborate on the five points submitted in the
letter requesting a rehearing, but in reverse order (see letter dated June 21,
1978, made a part of the record). In regard to Number 5, he questioned the
reasoning behind his having to demonstrate an office need as it was his pre-
rogative to spend $100,000 or $500,000 as he wished. Number 4--it was not
reasonable to deduce that 70 cars would be released on South Street and Harbor
Boulevard all at one time. Number 3--never at any time did he suggest that
Helena Street be widened or that the Chinese Elms be removed. No one from
the neighborhood had called him at all to find out the specifics of the proposal
even though he made himself available. Number 2--relative to parking lot lights
glaring on the Helena Street side of the property, he had not really considered
the lights. In any case, the previous minutes reflected the fact that all of
the plans would be subject to approval by the Planning Department. Considering
those 4 points on which the rehearing was granted, Mr. Morgan could not under-
stand how those could affect the vested rights he already had. Relative to item
Number 1 in the letter, most of the people in the immediate vicinity indicated
their approval of the proposed building. In looking at the matter realistically,
he did not see how the neighbors on North Helena or way down on South Helena
could be affected visually.
78-969
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Morgan reiterated that it was improper for the Council to totally ignore
the rules whereby he proceeded with his project without expecting some kind of
compensation for so doing. He hoped that in considering the decision with
reference to his project, the Council would at least consider that aspect be-
cause it was not fair to have "hung him out on a limb" to the extent they had
done, and then cut it off.
With reference to the project itself, Mr. Morgan relayed a number of facts which
had been expressed at the meeting of May 30, 1978. He took issue with reference
to his being an out-of-town speculator. He first purchased the property in 1962,
~e had lived in Anaheim for a number of years, and the only business license he
ever had to work had been in Anaheim. He was also active in Anaheim activities
and over the years had worked with practically every organization in the City.
Mrs. Kaufman who owned half of the property first came to Anaheim in 1924, prac-
ticed law in the City for 27 years and had always maintained a residence in
~aheim. He did not consider buying property in 1962 and trying to develop it
in 1978 to be speculative.
Mr. Morgan then relayed the following: he referred to all of the commercial uses
on both sides of Harbor and the immediate vicinity as well as businesses currently
backing up to some of the residents who had spoken. To deny him the right to put
a CO development on Harbor Boulevard would be an arbitrary decision on the Council's
part particularly in light of action previously taken by the Council in adopting
a resolution of intent to CO and considering what had already been permitted
directly across the street. He again pointed out that the lot to the rear (Helena
side) had never been part of the tract and anyone buying in that area even 27 years
prior would have known that any development would ultimately be developed as one
piece. They were only proposing to use the back portion of the lot as a parking
area for the front in order to make a proper development of the front parcel which
would not only benefit Harbor Boulevard, but also all the citizens of Anaheim. He
~:ou]d not think of anything that could be put on the back portion that would affect
residents on Helena Street any less than what he proposed.
Mr. Morgan then stated that he expected to be a resident/landlord and thus would
be available should there be any complaints. Relative to the block wall, it would
be totally covered with landscaping and not easily accessible for writing graffiti.
~ well, they had left areas for trees and they had been assessed 60 cents a foot
for the express purpose of planting trees in keeping with that which existed on
Helena Street. Trees would be planted in the parking lot as well. The building
would have a very beautiful architectural look in viewing it from all directions.
if he were to decide to locate the old building facing Harbor onto the Helena
side of the lot or try to move other old houses from the redevelopment area to
that property, he contended those homes, driveways and families would affect the
citizens to a greater degree than his project.
Mr. Morgan then referred to the traffic situation on South Street and repeated
some of the information he had given at the May 30, 1978 meeting indicating that
South Street was not overburdened with traffic. In comparing South and Harbor
with any major intersection in Anaheim, the traffic it carried on a daily basis
was relatively low. He then introduced as part of the proceedings a report
entitled, 1977 Traffic Census Report--Traffic Flow Chart--prepared by the Traffic
78-5 70
City Ha]i, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Engineer showing that in 1975 the count at Harbor and South Street (East Street
to Harbor Boulevard) was 4,900, in 1976, 4,500 and according to the Traffic
Engineer, the 1977 count had not changed from the prior year and it could be
less. At the previous meeting, Mayor Seymour commented on Mr. Morgan's remarks
relative to the development at Euclid and Crescent (Keystone Savings). In com-
parison however Crescent Avenue from Euclid Street to the Santa Ana Freeway
carried 9,800 cars in 1977 as compared to 4,500 at South and Harbor.
Before concluding, Mr. Morgan also relayed the following: the proposed building
would be relatively unoccupied after 5:00 p.m. and there would be no traffic of
consequence after that time and none on Saturdays and Sundays; there were far more
children playing in, around and on the streets (between Elm and Santa Ana) by the
Bank of America building; the 70 parking spaces were more than adequate and it was
doubtful that the lot would ever be full at any one time and the only reason 70
spaces were provided was to preclude the requirement for a variance; he would
prefer to give up some of the parking area along Helena and move the wall back
further into the property if the City Council would permit it; there was no way
he could develop Harbor that would affect the people in the neighborhood any less
than his proposed project; he believed his project to be one in keeping with
Harbor Boulevard, all he was trying to do was provide parking and block off the
Helena side.
In concluding, Mr. Morgan stated he hoped the Council would consider the vested
interest he already had in the property in altering any decision that had previously
been made.
Councilman Roth questioned the City Attorney regarding the expenditure already
made of between $40,000 and $50,000 by Mr. Morgan and wanted to know if the City
was in any way liable in the event their previous decision was reversed.
Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry stated that based on the Avco decisions, the
present situation was somewhat unusual since there was a rehearing on a rehearing.
~e general rule in those decisions was basically that prior to a right being vested
in the subject type of development, a building permit must have been issued. How-
ever, in the event of unusual delays or situations out of the control of the developer
and caused or created by the City or the City's government, such occurrences could
change the normal rules. In essence, there was some possibility of liability, but
he could not estimate to what extent. Only two cases had been won relative to
vested interest prior to a building permit being issued.
Mayor Seymour stated that there were enough cases on the books to set a precedent
so that, in his opinion, in reading the theory of vested rights, Mr. Morgan did
not have any vested rights at all.
Mr. Morgan interjected that his case was an unusual one and if the records were
checked, granting a rehearing on a rehearing was few and far between.
Mr. Dan L. Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, stated that
he would answer some of the specific concerns of the neighbors. First, he agreed
that the C~ty of Anaheim was in dire need of affordable single-family housing, but
any housing at the subject location or any place else in the City that would not be
a move-on would be a house that over 50 percent of the people in Anaheim could not
afford to buy. Eighteen to twenty-two thousand dollar lots as mentioned were not an
economic possibilty.
78-971
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rowland then pointed out the following in his presentation: the westerly
portion of the property had a resolution of intent to CO, and thus, by right Mr.
Morgan could ask the City Council to execute the zoning on the western half by
a reading of the ordinance. Specifically that would mean the 3-story building,
visual intrusion, masonry wall, and access to South Street and Harbor would be
a right of Mr. Morgan's and the neighborhood would have no further say in the
mauter. What they were being asked to do was accept the fact that the westerly
portion of the property be extended to accommodate parking in a landscaped
orderly fashion. All other aspects would remain the same except that the build-
lng would have to be slightly narrower.
Relative to graffiti, it was a maintenance problem and had to be accepted as a
business cost; the signalization of South Street according to the recent traffic
signalization and assessment fee study indicated that no further improvements
were included for the next 17 years in the signalization of that area. Therefore,
a crossing guard would not be necessary unless a guard was necessary at the present
time; the blind "spot" at Helena and South Street was mitigated by modification in
the masonry wall; relative to office space and its seeming over abundance, presently
in Orange County there were 10 million square feet of office space with an absorption
rate in the County of between 600,000 and 800,000 square feet. Sunset Construction
was not correct in stating that 13 million square feet of office space was going
to be built next to the Stadium, and the 8 to 10 percent vacancy rate at the Bank
of America building was real and enviable and a normal percentage of turnover; no
matter what was done, the property values in the neighborhood were going to raise
to the point where the residents homes might be too valuable to live in in a few
years; relative to the domino theory in the block to the north on Harbor, that
could possibly be true since, in time, Harbor Boulevard could be the gateway to
Northern Orange County.
Mr. Rowland then again showed the site plans of the project originally presented
to the Council and circulated in the neighborhood as best they could prior to
the meeting. He again described the building and the traffic pattern that would
be generated from it (see minutes of May 30, 1978).
Mr. Morgan then submitted for the record a list of people who approved of the
~roject which had not been submitted at the last meeting. He had also received
approximately 200 calls from people indicating their approval and the gentleman
at 808 South Helena who would be most affected indicated his wholehearted approval.
He also referred to the photographs presented at the last meeting showing many of
the commercial uses on Harbor. He reiterated that the Council should bear in
mind that if they denied him the right to build his project, it would be a type
of spot zoning and an arbitrary decision on their part.
~e Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposed project.
Mr. W. W. Morningstar, Attorney, 300 South Harbor, stated that he did not believe
that anyone would want to give up Anaheim Stadium, the Convention Center, or
Disneyland, but those facilities were not necessarily conducive to nice residential
areas. Harbor was perhaps the heaviest travelled north/south street in the City
and to develop Harbor and still protect the abutting residential areas such as
78-972
C;ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
provided by Mr. Morgan's proposal was ideal. As an example, he referred to the
Farmer's Insurance Company off the Santa Ana Freeway in Santa Ana which backed
up to Flower Street and homes in the $100,000 plus category. The people who
lived there preferred that situation over having neighbors behind them, espec-
ially on weekends. It was a buffer and conducive to a nice residential neigh-
borhood. Likewise, Mr. Morgan's development on Harbor would be an asset to the
City and the community, provide a buffer and be conducive to the quiet residential
area on Helena Street. He urged the Council to approve the reclassification allow-
ing Mr. Morgan's project.
In summation, Mr. Routh first asked the Council to put themselves in the place
of the neighborhood faced with the prospect of having to live with a parking
lot and 3-story building near their homes. They did not want it and the Council
would not want it. As well, Mr. Morgan had not contacted him personally and
they also had some difficulty in gathering zoning information from the City.
He emphasized that they simply did not want a parking lot and a fence at the
end of their street, but they wanted to see homes and people. They wanted a
place to live without the attendant problems brought out in their testimony.
He urged the Council again to think in their terms.
~ere being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Discussion followed between Councilman Roth and Miss Santalahti where it was
concluded that if Mr. Morgan built four dwelling units on the easterly portion
of the property with a scaling down of the commercial structure on Harbor, a
20-foot building, 2-stories in height would be more reasonable.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the letter of June 21, 1978, requesting the
rehearing where Mr. Routh mentioned the easement and eventual widening of the
west side of Helena being totally unacceptable because it would cause the up-
rooting of 27-year old Chinese Elms.
Mr. Routh stated that understanding came from the neighbors who contacted City
Hall. However, they had not received any clear information. The understanding
was that dedication on the property would then permit the entire block to be
designated commercial and that the street would be widened thus affecting the
elm trees; Councilwoman Kaywood could find nothing in the documentation that
~ndicated such action would be taken.
Miss Santalahti stated that the Engineering Division and the Zoning Code required
in the development of any property that the street be widened to its ultimate
width. In this case, it was 25 feet as shown to the south. There was an additional
7 feet required in front of the property in question, 18 feet being the current
one-half width.
Mr. Rowland explained that the curb and gutter were now in at their ultimate right-
of-way. The piece of land being requested for dedication was not for street
widening purposes, but to conform to the property lines to the south. Since the
property was never part of the subdivision, it was never dedicated to the City.
The change would now place the sidewalk on public property instead of private
property, but no physical changes would take place.
78-973
~it_t_~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rowland also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that it was not their intent
to remove any trees as stated at the two previous hearings. On the contrary,
they would compliment them and their site plan showed the placement of elms as
frequently as the Code would allow in the parkway on Helena as well as offset
inside the property. Their last thought would be to remove trees on either
side of the street.
Relative to the parking lights on Helena, Mr. Rowland explained that the lights
would be completely contained and directed according to Code. The only lighting
would be security lighting and in any event, there was no reason to light the
lot after 5:00 or 6:00 P.M.
Mr. Rowland then answered questions directed to him from a person in the audience
relative to traffic, the answers for which were contained in both previous meetings
(see minutes of April 4, 1978 and May 30, 1978).
~yor Seymour first spoke to the fact that Mr. Morgan pointed out that too much
time had elapsed since the last hearing causing some injustice. The Mayor
noted, however, that at the first public hearing before the Council on April 4,
1978, at which time the proposal was denied, it was exactly 56 days later at
Mr. Morgan's request for a rehearing that the second rehearing took place and
the project was approved. It was exactly 56 days again from the last hearing
(May 30, 1978), this time at the residents request for a rehearing. He contended
that any allegations suggesting that undue time had elapsed was unjustified.
The citizens had as much vested rights in their neighborhood as Mr. Morgan had
in his property.
Mayor Seymour continued that he did not believe a great deal had changed since
the first hearing on April 4, 1978. In reviewing the minutes of that meeting,
he suggested at the time that the basic problem was and continued to be the
utilization and development of the easterly half of the property. The entire
reasonable approach was to develop the westerly portion in accordance with the
resolution of intent to CO with the easterly portion developed into single-family
residences and perhaps even smaller lot sizes, but detached single-family homes.
In the three hearings, he noted an evergrowing concern expressed by an evergrowing
~umber of residents throughout the entire neighborhood. He also maintained that
evidence had been submitted that should cause the Council to reverse its previous
position specifically the evidence contained in the letter dated June 21, 1978--
the final two paragraphs of the first page, and the fifth and sixth paragraphs
on page 2 further substantiating the original position of a smaller group of
c~tizens from that neighborhood. In a conflict of this type, it was a question
of either siding with the neighborhood or with a particular development that,
although very attractive, posed a real threat to the residents. As he stated
previously, he had to support the neighborhood and thus offered Resolution No.
78R-473 for adoption, denying Reclassification No. 78-7-78-38. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-473: 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. (77-78-38, CO)
78- 97,'~
f~]_~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that he supported the proposal
at the last two hearings. Both times he indicated the project was the highest
and best use for the property, provided the ultimate in protection for the
neighbors and without requiring any variances. Because of the number of people
who contacted him in the last few weeks however, he would have to capitulate and
suggested that Mr. Morgan submit a proposal with commercial for the front portion
(westerly portion on Harbor) and a residential plan for the rear in order to
satisfy his constituents and the people in the neighborhood. In supporting the
Mayor's resolution, he was voting against his principles relative to his feelings
on individual property rights and the imposition of infringements on those rights.
Councilman Roth reiterated what he had stated before relative t~Tthe matter--he
complimented Mr. Morgan and Mr. Rowland on their project and although it was very
attractive and would be a credit to the Harbor site, it had been the policy of
the Council to lean toward neighborhood preservation and to preclude intrusion
into a well established residential area. He had not changed his position or
his philosophy relative to neighborhood preservation, thus would support the
~yor's resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood first clarified some misconceptions a neighbor had ex-
pressed in a call to her, specifically that Mr. Morgan had met with the whole
Council and with her as well, and the neighborhood felt it was a predetermined
situation. The caller was quite startled to learn that she (Kaywood) had never
seen or known Mr. Morgan prior to the first Council hearing in April.
Relative to the project, there was a very honest difference of opinion involved.
She did not believe it to be a bad thing for the neighborhood since it would be
a buffer and provide protection. If there was no access onto South Street, the
very thing that the neighborhood feared would occur traffic-wise. If it was not
possible to make a left-turn onto Harbor, but vehicles wanted to go left, they
would take the alternative and go right onto South Street and then right onto
Helena to travel south. While it was obvious the vote was not going to be
favorable, she believed if the project were built, the neighbors would find
they would be happy with it.
Councilman Overholt stated that his decision of May 30, 1978 was the most diffi-
cult he had made to that time. He had voted for the project and subsequently
when he was out among the residents, they expressed their disappointment in his
vote. Mr. Morgan, in talking with the residents, asked what he could do to make
his project compatible with their wishes. He (Overholt) was hopeful the dialogue
would then have started in order to enable the project to go forward in some
modified form. As nice a project as it otherwise might be, if the residents
did not want it, he as a Council person would not be a part of forcing it on
them. Thus, although regretfully, because of the quality of the project, he
would vote to support the Mayor's resolution.
Mr. Rowland interjected that in the resolution, the Council consider some flexi-
bility in the property line which called for the property to be split exactly
down the center. Thus, if the property could be developed at all, it could be
developed to the advantage of both. Mayor Seymour stated the appropriate place
to discuss that was with the Planning Commission.
78-975
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, Californi.~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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-473 duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor stated he suspected that a new proposal with some single-family
residences or some other type of use would be taking place in the future.
In the event variances were going to be granted or a movement of the lot line
requested, the residents would be notified, and the same process would be taking
place. Thus, although the particular development proposed was denied, it did
not mean that Mr. Morgan could not start all over and propose something different.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (10:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (10:45 P.M.)
114: RECORDING OF EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: Councilman Kott requested that the City
Attorney look into the idea of having a tape recorder or minutes taken during
Executive Session. While he understood the purpose of executive sessions, he
was not in favor of them because it precluded information that he believed the
public had a right to know. He directed the City Attorney to submit a report
in one week or at an appropriate time relative to taping or having minutes taken
at Executive Sessions.
]29: RATIFICATION OF PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERk~IT: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, a public fireworks display permit adminis-
tratively granted to Astro Pyrotronics on behalf of Wolf Rismiller Concerts, for
July 23 and 24, 1978, was ratified. MOTION CARRIED.
t69: REPORT ON TRADITIONAIRE LUMINAIRE LIGHTING: (Continued from the meeting
of June 6, 1978) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Ka~vwood,
the report on Traditionaire Luminaire lighting was continued to September 12, 1978,
at the request of the Utilities Director in memorandum dated July 13, 1978. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Kott stated that the question was reduced to the maintenance of the
fixtures and if Anaheim Hills was the party making the recommendations, since
the City had problems with the procedure in the past, that they should also
guarantee the results.
142: DETEP~iINATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF COUNCIL TO 7 MEMBERS AND PLACEMENT
ON NOVEMBER BALLOT: (Continued from the meeting of July 11, 1978) Councilman
Roth stated he would like the matter held over one week because he wanted to
give a presentation on it at that time.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the subject matter for one week. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion.
78-976
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated he was prepared to discuss
the matter tonight, thus, he was opposed to the motion and offered a substitute
motion asking that it be discussed presently.
Mayor Seymour stated that Councilman Kott could speak in opposition, but he
was going to rule the substitute motion out of order. He continued that it
was obvious to him with the action that was taken on the election of the Mayor,
by sending it to the Charter Review Committee, that the only reason the majority
of the Council wanted to keep it at the Council level, and now to continue it
would be to kill it, depriving it from going to the ballot in his opinion. He
would, however, support the request for a continuance.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Kott stated he was opposed to the continuance because it woold preclude
the question from being placed on the ballot because of time limitations and the
Council would then be in a position that rightfully belonged to the people.
In answer to questioning by Councilman Roth, City Clerk Roberts stated the City
did not have to notify the County until the end of August of any Charter Amendments
to be placed on the November ballot.
167: ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES OR ASSESSMENTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS - COUNCIL POLICY
NO. 214: (Continued from the meetings of June 6 and 27 and July 18, 1978) Mayor
Seymour reported that the Chamber of Commerce provided some input through their
City/County Government Committee by recommending the adoption of Alternate 3 of
the study entitled "City of Anaheim--Traffic Signalization and Assessment Fee
Study", June 1978.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained for Councilman Kott the reason why the
report was geared specifically toward commercial uses. They gathered from the
actions of the City Council and certain precedents, that there was no quarrel
with residential or industrial traffic signal assessments. Therefore, in order
to try and balance the matter on the same basis as outlined in Alternate 1
(residential) presently assessed, they had to raise the residential and industrial
rate in order to make up for what was lowered in the commercial area. By recom-
mending Alternate 3, a 50 percent reduction, both the residential and industrial
areas reverted back to the present configuration of $36 for residential and $30
for industrial and only altered the assessment on the commercial uses. He also
clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the action would mean, instead of a 10-year
plan relative to signalization and improvements, they were now looking at a 17-year
plan. That was their best projection based on past building experience; but on~
the other hand, the City would be running out of new lands to develop somewhere
along the line.
Councilwoman Kaywood then pointed to (1) a typographical error on Page 4 of the
report--$120/$100 GSF, should be $120/$1,000 GSF and, (2) Page 32--Alternative 1,
$36/1,000 GSF, should be $360/1,000 GSF. Mr. Singer confirmed the corrections.
Councilman Roth moved to support the Chamber's recommendation of Alternative 3.
* Noting a continuance would allow time, Mayor Seymour, apologized, thinking
today was the deadline. (See Minutes of November 21, 1978, Page 78- )
78-97~7
~!~y ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 257 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The motion died for lack of a second.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, establish-
ment of fees or assessments for traffic signals in connection with Council
Policy No. 214, the first reading of the ordinance for same, and directing the
City Attorney to prepare a resolution establishing such fees was continued one
week. MOTION CARRIED.
167: SUNSET CONSTRUCTION, INC. - ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC LIGHT FEES: (Continued
from July 18, 1978) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, request of Sunset Construction, Inc., in connection with the assess-
ment of traffic light fees on new developments was continued one week. MOTION
CARRIED.
148: ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL - RECONFIRMATION OF CURRENT DELEGATE
AND APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE: (Continued from July 18, 1978) The City Clerk
reported she was informed that the City's current delegate, William F. Daly had
moved from the City and, therefore, was not eligible to be a representative.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, request of
the Orange County Health Planning Council for reconfirmation of the City's
current representative to the Assembly of Delegates and appointment of an alter-
hate delegate was continued for one week to ascertain Mr. Daly's resident status.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO CITY'S COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS: (Appointments necessary
due to expiration of terms or vacancies, terms ending June 30 of the years
indicated) Mayor Seymour stated the best procedure would be to accept all
nominations and those nominations then to be voted on individually. The pur-
pose would be to avoid the idea in the past that the appointee was a personal
appointment by a Council Member. There were no objections voiced to the pro-
~'edure by the Council.
Community Services Board - Three Members: Councilman Roth nominated James R.
West to the Community Services Board for the term expiring in 1981; Councilman
Kott nominated Bill Taormina, term expiring 1982; Councilwoman Kaywood nominated
Dick Richards, Councilman Seymour nominated Fernando V. Galaviz, and Councilman
Overholt nominated Evangeline Sandoval for the term ending 1982.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, nominations for
appointees to the Community Services Board were closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth moved to appoint James R. West to the Community Service Board
for the term expiring June 30, 1981. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott moved to appoint Bill Taormina to the Community Services Board
for the term expiring June 30, 1982. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
78-978
(2[ ty Hal.l_ ~, _Ana_he_i_m,_ ~Ca_l._if.orgj_a' F CQ.UN_q!q _M_I~_UTES _-_ J~ul_y_ _2_5~ 19 78, 1:30 P .M.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Dick Richards to the Community Services
Board for the term expiring June 30, 1982. The motion died for lack of a
second.
Councilman Seymour moved to appoint Fernando V. Galaviz to the Community
Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1982. Councilman Kott seconded
the motion. Council Members Overholt and Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Golf Course Commission - Two Members - No Terms: Councilman Roth stated it was
his understanding the Commission was going to submit names to the Council and
subsequently he read the Commission was waiting for the Council to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood also questioned whether 7 was a sufficient number for the
Commission. Councilman Seymour noted that the current composition of the Commis-
sion did not have any representation from the Anaheim Hills Golf Course.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, appointments
to the Golf Course Commission were continued for four weeks with recommendations
to be solicited from the Golf Course Commission including representation from the
Anaheim Hills Golf Course. MOTION CARRIED.
Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC): Determination of the length
of staggered terms and assignment of members to those terms--reappointment of ex-
isting members--filling of four vacancies.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Lynn Buffington, Chairman of HACMAC, if the Committee
had given thought to what the staggered terms might be; Mr. Buffington stated
one and two years.
Councilman Seymour moved that the staggered terms of the il-member Hill and
Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee be 6 members for 2-year terms and 5 members
for 1-year terms. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour moved to reappoint the 7 existing HACMAC members; Lynn
Buffington, Hans Gowa, Jan Hall, John Lether, Mary Ruth Pinson, John Rau and
Jerry Walsh. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked Jan Hall the status of John Lether
since there was a complaint relative to absenteeism.
Mrs. Jan Hall, Secretary of HACMAC, reported that Mr. Lether was removed from
the Committee because of absenteeism. Mr. Buffington explained that Mr. Lether
had a teaching commitment, but since indicated that the assignment was over and
he again wished to serve. He added that Mr. Lether was a good member during the
time he served.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood then suggested that John Rau be replaced with John
Dedishaw, because she believed that Mr. Rau had a conflict of interest serving
on the Committee. He worked for Ultra Systems, a company whicb did business with
the City and had provided a report relative to the Canyon area. Since she had
received complaints on Mr. Rau, she moved that John Rau not be reappointed to
HACMAC. The motion died for lack of a second.
78-979
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the original motion reappointing the existing 7
HACMAC members. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth stated that relative to new appointees, he wanted to see
representation from the Lake Summit area. He thus nominated George Sisson,
706 Viewpoint Lane. Mr. Sisson was very active in the Lake Summit Homeowners
Association and chaired the slope committee. He was retired and therefore
could devote the necessary time. He was a dynamic individual and would be
able to offer good input as a member of HACMAC. Councilman Roth thereupon
nominated George Sisson to serve as a member of HACMAC.
Councilman Seymour nominated Karen Schoenherz, Eloise Gunther and Jane Allen
to serve as members to HACMAC.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, nominations for
appointees to HACMAC were closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour moved to appoint George Sisson, Karen Schoenherz, Eloise
Gunther and Jane Allen. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Relative to the length of terms, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that of the 7 re-
appointments, John Rau serve for one year and the balance serve for two years.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION
CARRIED.
The four new members would serve a one-year term ending July 31, 1979.
162: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR A RETRANSMISSION STATION FOR TV:
(Continued from the meeting of July 11, 1978) Carol Foba, spokesperson, re-
quested a continuation to the meeting to August 1, 1978.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the report
regarding the legality of formation of an assessment district for a retransmission
station for television was continued to August 1, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
156: 12TH ANNUAL POLICE OLYMPICS - ATTENDANCE BY POLICE OFFICERS: (August 2-6,
1978 - attendance by Police Officers on City time - Continued from meeting of
July 18, 1978) Detective James Watkins explained for the Mayor that he had pre-
sented his request to the Council the previous week in the Mayor's absence.
Mayor Seymour stated as he understood, the Chief gave his okay to the Olympics,
but not participation of the Police Officers on City time; Detective Watkins
confirmed that presently appeared to be the only problem. One thing that had
changed since the previous week was a reduction in the number of officers wishing
to attend, down to 15 instead of 22. Those who dropped out were the entire two
pistol teams; the reason being that they travelled all year long all over the
State using their own time, and most of the members were out of time. It was not
that they were not interested in going to the Olympics. As well, he received
their fu!l support in the efforts to allow the remaining 15 officers to partici-
pa te.
78-! 80
Ci_t¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Police Chief Bastrup stated that he took a great deal of pride in the pistol
team and they were perhaps the second best in the State. He appreciated their
stand on the matter. They did use a great deal of their own time and he commended
them.
The Chief continued that after last week's meeting, he and members of his staff
immediately met with Detective Watkins and his committee to discuss the situation
to find a formula where those who wanted to could participate in the Olympics and
that number was now reduced to 15. He (Bastrup) directed a memorandum to City
Manager Talley dated July 24, 1978, which stated that the request for Police
Officers to participate in the upcoming Police Olympics was now at 15, and they
indicated a willingness to use their own time. In view of all the use of their
own personal time, they requested that the City allow 360 hours of City business
time, representing approximately $6,000. In essence, they were asking for the
same number of hours for fewer people.
Chief Bastrup continued he always had and still did favor his Police Officers
participation in the Olympics. This year however he had to consider the impact
of Proposition 13. He was constantly trying to reduce the cost of his operation,
while increasing efficiency and he could not honestly absorb the additional cost
in his budget. In summary, the Police Department had been able to make the
necessary arrangements for each of the 15 officers to use their own time or com-
pensatory time to participate in their schedule of Olympic events. Use of City
business time was not recommended. Additionally, he had talked to the Risk
Manager, Jack Love, to obtain his reaction regarding the officers participation
and the liability that might be involved. Mr. Love advised him that it would be
unwise from a risk management perspective to allow police officers to participate
in the Olympics on City time for the following reasons: should an officer sustain
injuries going to or coming from the Olympics or when actually participating in
events, such an injury would be considered job related entitling the participant
to Workers' Compensation Benefits. This would be a considerable significant
exposure to liability on the part of the City which the City should not voluntarily
assume. Moreover, should an injury be permanently disabling to the degree where
the individual could no longer perform the duties of a police officer, that person
would be entitled to a service connected disability retirement. It would be a
substantial risk of great magnitude in terms of cost to the City mitigating any
positive benefits the City might derive from allowing participation in the Olympics.
He, therefore, recon~ended if the officers were permitted to do so, that it be on
their own time.
In answer to the Mayor, City Manager Talley recommended that the City not incur
the potential risk and that officers be encouraged to participate on their own
time.
Councilman Kott asked why the request to participate in the Olympics did not
receive the same treatment as other requests where the department head channeled
his request through the City Manager. He preferred that such requests go through
the regular channels.
78-9~1
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley explained that the Anaheim Police Association did not report to the
City Manager and in this case were coming forward to ask a policy decision from
the City Council. He was powerless to have employee associations observe control
by the City Manager.
A discussion then followed between the Mayor and City Manager in which Mr. Talley
explained that the Anaheim Police Association wrote a letter on May 9, 1978, but
it was actually sent to the City on Friday, July 14, 1978, after the meeting
agenda had gone to press. In the past two years, the Association did not send
any communication beforehand, but merely came forward at the meeting. There was
no request received on a timely basis for which a staff report could be submitted.
Councilman Overholt moved that 15 Police Officers be permitted to participate
in the 12th Annual Police Olympics on their own time, as recommended by the Chief
of Police and the City Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
174: AWARD OF CONTRACT - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT IMPROVEMENT, AREAS
1 AND 2 STREET AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS; AREAS 1, 2 AND 4 BARRIER REMOVAL: (Account
Nos. 46-792-6325-2020, 25-793-6325-3050, 3060, 3070, 3080, 3090 and 3100) Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-474 for adoption awarding a contract to the
low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated July 18, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-474: 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: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - AREA 1 & 2 STREET & ALLEY
IMPROVEMENTS; AREA 1, 2 & 4 BARRIER REMOVAL; Area bound by La Palma Avenue,
Union Pacific Railroad, Cypress Street and Anaheim Boulevard, in the City of
Anaheim. (Blystone Company, $374,944.70)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
~e Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-474 duly passed and adopted.
174: AWARD OF CONTRACT - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AREAWIDE
WATER SYSTEM, PROJECT AREA III: (Acccount No. 58-4864-683-49-0300) Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-475 for adoption awarding a contract to the low
bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his memo-
randum dated July 18, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-982
~j_ty Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-475: 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: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - AREAWIDE WATER
SYSTEM - PROJECT AREA III, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 58-4864-683-49-0300.
(Ace Pipeline, $242,083.50)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-475 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE IBM MT/ST TYPEWRITER FOR THE LIBRARY: (Account
No. 01-172-5115) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the bid of IBM was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of
$3,287.48, including tax, as reconnnended in memorandum dated July 19, 1978, from
the Purchasing Agent (conversion of rental to purchase). MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF SERVICES - REFINISHING FLOORS AT CHARTRES RECREATION BUILDING:
(Account No. 01-252-6201) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, the bid of Lenzi M. Allred was accepted and service authorized in
the amount of $3,456, including tax, as recommended in memorandum dated July 18,
1978, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF SERVICES - REFINISHING FLOORS AT LA PALMA RECREATION BUILDING:
(Account No. 01-252-6201) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, the bid of Lenzi M. Allred was accepted and service authorized in
the amount of $6,160, including tax, as recommended in memorandum dated July 18,
1978, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - SYSTEM 200 RECORD PROCESSOR MODEL 98 FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT (UPDATABLE MICROFICHE): (Account No. 01-184-7115) On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the lowest and best qualified bid of
A B Dick/Scott was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $29,224.30,
including tax, as recommended in memorandum dated July 19, 1978 from the Purchasing
Agent. MOTION CARRIED. '
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the PUC Application No. 58112 of R. E. Trahan, dba Get A Way Lines
first amendment to application for authority to extend existing passenger stage
authority for home to work service between points in Orange County and Los Angeles
County, on the one hand, and the Southern California Edison Nuclear Generating Sta-
tion at San Onofre, California on the other hand.
78-98'3
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
b. 148: Orange County Criminal Justice Council letter of July 14, 1978
and attached resolution for prevention of the proliferation of Regional Crimi-
nal Justice Planning Agencies within California.
c. 175: Before the PUC Application No. 58014, as amended, of C. D. Lewis,
dba Orange Blossom Lines, for authority to extend existing passenger stage
authority for home-to-work service between points in Riverside and Los Angeles
Counties, on the one hand, and the Southern California Edison Nuclear Generating
Station at San Onofre, California on the other hand.
d. 175: Before the PUC Application No. 57963 of Southern California Edison
Company for authority to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Clause to increase
its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor - Notice of Temporary Removal from
Calendar.
e. 114: City of Burbank Resolution No. 18,416 protesting the amount of the
membership assessment for membership in the Southern California Association
of Governments.
f. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of June 12, 1978.
g. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of June 15, 1978.
h. 105: Public Library Board - Minutes of June 19 and July 5, 1978.
i. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of June 20 and 27, 1978.
j. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of May 18 and 25, 1978.
k. 140: Monthly report for June 1978 - Public Library.
142: Charter Review Committee - Minutes of July 12, 1978.
2. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following Public Dance Permit was approved
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
~. Public Dance Permit for the Anaheim Soccer Club to hold a dance at the
Anaheim Convention Center, July 29, 1978, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
(Joel Aguirre Guerena, applicant.
MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Both Assistant City Attorney Lowry and City
Manager Talley clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to one
of the claims at the conclusion of which Councilman Kott moved that the claims
be denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or self-insurance admin-
istrator. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustained
during repairs on a power outage at 5574 Edgemar Avenue on or about June 3, 1978.
78-984
(iii.tx Ha.ll, Anaheim? California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. for property damages
purportedly sustained to Carl's Jr. #18 (1116 North Euclid) as a result of
gas line damage on or about June 8, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Keith Brodie for personal injuries and property damages
purportedly sustained as a result of action by Anaheim Police on or about
March 18, 1978.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-476
through 78R-478, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would abstain from voting on Resolution No.
78R-476.
Relative to Resolution No. 78R-478, Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Superintendent, ex-
plained for Councilman Kott how the cost of the water system was determined, as
well as the formula for reimbursement.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-476: 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: EUCLID STREET
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, RIVERSIDE FREEWAY TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, A.H.F.P. NO. 836, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-2080; 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 August 24, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-476 duly passed and adopted.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-477: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENTS. (77-26A, north of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst, public hearing
set for August 22, 1978, 3:00 p.m.)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-478: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CRITERION DEVELOP-
MENT, INC. TO REIMBURSE THE DEVELOPER FOR INSTALLING 625 FEET OF WATER MAIN AS
PART OF THE SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN RIO GRANDE DRIVE, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
78-985
~ijty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held July 3, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
[. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-1: Submitted by James E. and Bertie L. Hazell,
for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL on property located at 620 South Harbor
Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-141, granted
Reclassification No. 78-79-1 and granted negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1849 AND VARIANCE
NO. 3025: Submitted by British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd., for a change in
zone from ML to CL to permit industrial uses and off-site sign with waiver of
minimum site screening to construct a Commercial/Industrial Complex on property
located west of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Midway Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-142, PC78-143
and PC78-144, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-2, Conditional Use Permit No.
1849 and Variance No. 3025, respectively, and granted negative declaration
status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1803 (READV.): Submitted by Bernardo M. and
Margaret Yorba, to permit an automobile service station on CL(SC) zoned property
located northwest of Avenida Bernardo North and Imperial Highway with waiver
of permitted sign.
The application was withdrawn by the applicant, and the City Planning Commission
granted negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1843: Submitted by Marilyn E. Domino, Myung Shik
and Kum OK Yun, to expand an existing motel on CL zoned property located at 733
and 735 South Beach Boulevard with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-146, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1843, in part, and granted negative declaration
status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1847: Submitted by Robert W. and Donna Hostetter,
to expand an existing cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located at 409, 411
and 413 South Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-~47 granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1847 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1848: Submitted by Donald L. and Floriene
Sandersfeld, to permit a motel on CL zoned property located at 675 South
Brookhurst.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-148, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1848 and granted negative declaration status.
78-9~6
City.. Ha.il:. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1850: Submitted by Vincent P. and Patricia L.
Pietrok, to permit a gymnastic training center on ML zoned property located
at 1000 East South Street with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-149, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1850 and ratified the Planning Director's categor-
ical exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1851: Submitted by Leehman H. and Jeanette A.
Vaughan, to convert an existing restaurant to a cocktail lounge with public
dancing on CL zoned property located at 1233 South Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-150, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1851 and granted negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1852: Submitted by Richard C. Hunsaker, to permit
a sandwich shop with on-sale beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 2748
East Miraloma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-151, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1851 and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1853: Submitted by Grove Street Associates,
to permit an automobile restoration facility on ML zoned property located at
1194 North Grove Street with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-152, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1853 with a review in one year and granted nega-
tive declaration status.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1855: Submitted by Gilbert V. Kraemer, et al.,
to permit a car leasing facility on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1071
North Blue Gum Street with a waiver of required enclosure of outdoor use.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-153, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1855 and granted negative declaration status.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1857: Submitted by Harry S. Rinker, Trustee,
Walter A. Frome, Jr., et al., to permit commercial offices on ML(SC) zoned
property located at 5520 and 5620 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution PC78-140, denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1857 and granted negative declaration status.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1860: Submitted by William P. Draganza and
Douglas E. Jones, to permit a massage business on CL zoned property located
west of Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-154, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1860, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
78-987
~j.ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
]4. VARIANCE NO. 3021: Submitted by Canyon Plaza Development, to construct 7
free-standing signs on CL(SC) zoned property located at 400 North Lakeview
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-138, granted
Variance No. 3021, in part, for 4 free-standing signs and ratified the Planning
Director's categorical exemption determination.
15. VARIANCE NO. 3023: Submitted by Euclid Shopping Center, to construct a
free-standing sign on CL zoned property located at 1660 West Katella Avenue
with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-145, granted
Variance No. 3023 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
16. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1362: Submitted by Pete Stanger, requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1362 on property located west of
State College Boulevard, north of Center Street to permit a three-story hotel
for "active senior citizens".
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-156, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1362.
17. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1539 AND 1012: Request by Patricia Ann Weiser
for clarification of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1539 and 1012 to determine
whether a nursery school is allowable on property located north of Ball Road,
west of Dale Avenue.
~e City Planning Commission clarified Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1539 and 1012
as being in compliance with previous conditional use permits.
18. RE~.~EST BY MAYOR SEYMOUR REGARDING NOTIFICATION LISTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
Mayor Seymour requested that notification lists be made up by the petitioner
when an apartment conversion to condominium is proposed so that the tenants
will be notified of the public hearings.
The City Planning Commission concurred with the recommendation.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1499: Submitted by Thomas Noon and Shea Homes, re-
questing termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1499, to permit the continued
use and expansion of a private school on property located north of Orange Avenue,
west of Brookhurst Street.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-479 for adoption terminating Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1499. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-9(8
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-479: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1499
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-602 NULL AND VOID.
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-479 duly passed and adopted.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 147: To consider alternate proposals of
ultimate land uses (single-family residential, multiple-family residential,
commercial, office, industrial, open space and combinations of these for the
areas listed below:
I. Southwest corner of Ninth Street and Katella Avenue encompassing 3.2 acres.
II. Area south of Miraloma Way between the Riverside and Orange Freeways Inter-
change encompassing approximately 13.4 acres.
III.
IV.
Area encompassing approximately 47.3 acres south of the Riverside Freeway,
north of the Santa Ana River, between Glassell Street and Tustin Avenue.
Northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway encompassing
approximately 3.7 acres.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, August 22, 1978,
at 3:00 p.m., was the date and time set for public hearing on General Plan Amendment
No. 147. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9750: Developer, Warmington Company of Irvine; tract
located south of Nohl Ranch Road between Imperial Highway and Anaheim Hills Road,
containing 65 RS-HS-10,000 proposed zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
9750, subject to Condition No. 5 of the conditions of approval being amended to
read: "5. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted
to and approved by the City Attorney's office and recorded prior to issuance of
building permits.", as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated
July 19, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCES FOR FINAL READING: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3888
and 3889 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3888: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO
SUBSECTION .1030 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (no parking on the north side
of Orangethorpe Avenue, from 250' east of Landfair Street to West City Limits)
78-989
_Ci__ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 3889: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
18.03.091.060 OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.03 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING A NEW SECTION IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO ZONING. (to permit
retroactive time extensions for conditional use permits and variances)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3888 and 3889 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3890: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3890 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3890: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-53, ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3890 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3891: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3891 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3891: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-54, RM-1200)
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. 3891 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3893 AND 3894: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3893
and 3894 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3893: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(28), RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3894: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(9), RM-4000)
78-990
~.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
150: PARKS~ RECREATION & ARTS DEPARTMENT - GOLD MEDAL FINALIST- Councilwoman
Kaywood announced that the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department had been
selected as a gold medal finalist for parks and recreation management. It was
a tremendous honor to have been selected, and she extended hers and the Council's
congratulations to the department.
114: COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 15, 1978: Councilman Roth announced that he would
be on vacation August 9 through 20, 1978.
City Clerk Roberts stated that Councilwoman Kaywood would also be on vacation
the week of August 14, 1978; Councilman Overholt stated that there was a possi-
bility that his vacation would also fall within that time period.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, it was anticipated
that no Council meeting would be held on August 15, 1978, due to lack of a quorum.
Councilmen Kott and Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
150: CULTURAL ARTS SPECIAL STUDY COMMITTEE AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY: Council-
man Kott stated that the Council at the meeting of July 18, 1978, accepted the
subject report which cost the taxpayer $12,500. The report was supposed to have
been a statistical analysis. He had received information that a confidential
report was first produced by the consultant. The report was then presented to
a committee composed of at least one Council Member for review. After review,
all the reports were collected and redone to suit the committee's wishes in
Councilman Kott's opinion. Thus, it was not a statistical analysis. He had
been in touch with people in the college system who had expertise in the field
and, if necessary, he could have them appear before the Council. Councilman Kott
thereupon stated that he wanted to have the City Attorney investigate the matter
to ascertain if, in his opinion, or that of any people he may find necessary, the
study was a statistical analysis for which $12,500 in taxpayer's funds were ex-
pended. He believed the City Council was entitled to see the confidential report.
Councilman Overholt explained as he had at the previous meeting (see minutes
July 18, 1978 for detailed discussion) that he was a member of the subject
committee from its inception up to the second to last meeting at which time he
resigned, having been elected to the Council. The committee itself spoke about
a needs assessment and the Council entered into a contract with Edmund Carlson
Associates, Inc. The report presented by Mr. Carlson at the second to last
meeting was marked confidential because it was not in its final form and ready
for release by him. If the Council had a question relative to his professional
ability, Councilman Overholt suggested it might be well to review what went
through the Council's mind when he was hired.
Councilman Kott stated he did not question Mr. Carlson's ability, only the fact
that the study was supposed to be a statistical analysis and, in his opinion,
the City did not receive such an analysis. It should have been an objective
report and not exposed prior to its release.
Councilman Seymour questioned why the Council had not seen the report marked
confidential. Councilman Overholt explained that documentation had been pre-
sented a couple or three times in the process of development of the study, and
the document presented to the committee at the last meeting he attended was
"in the process of development."
78-991
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 25~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he suspected something was contained in the confidential
report that was not in the final report; Councilman Overholt believed that was
true. When Mr. Carlson presented it to the committee, it was marked confidential.
That was his report and he was concerned that it did not get out to every cultural
arts association in town before it was submitted to the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour wanted to see the reports totally and completely and
he thereupon moved to direct the City Manager to request Mr. Carlson to submit
all stages of all his reports as it progressed to finalization. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott reiterated his request that the City Attorney investigate the
matter to determine if the agreement with Mr. Carlson had been fulfilled.
175: SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT AND RECONNECTION CHARGE - ELECTRIC AND WATER:
Mayor Seymour stated that last week when he was absent (see minutes July 18,
1978) the Council took action to increase service establishment and reconnection
charges for both electric and water which action created additional revenues to
the City of $240,000 to $300,000 a year. He concurred with the Council's deci-
sion to properly structure hookup and disconnection fees if delivery of that
service and cost of same was out of line.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to ask the Public Utilities Board when they
would reduce rates by a like amount since the $240,000-$300,000 was not in-
cluded in the budget and therefore was new found money.
Before action was taken, the Mayor stated if the Council was opposed to such
a motion, then he wanted them to declare that they created a user fee to cover
Proposition 13.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Discussion followed wherein City Manager Talley pointed out that the budget adopted
by the Council included an additional $1.5 million dollar transfer from Utilities
and the staff report included the subject fees as part of that amount. Thus, it
was not new found money, but one part of a multi-faceted program to balance the
budget.
The Mayor thereupon withdrew his motion and requested from the City Manager a
copy of the memorandum wherein such charges were approved in adopting the
current budget. Councilman Kott withdrew his second.
ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
Anaheim City Council adjourned to Monday, July 31, 1978, 1:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 12:15 a.m.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK