1978/10/10 78-1330
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 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 MAi~AGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards
POLICE LIEUTENANT: Randall Gaston
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phillip Schwartze
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
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: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION: Mr. Stuart Moss introduced to the Council Mr. James Springer,
the new General Director of the Anaheim Y.M.C.A.
Mr. Springer stated it was a pleasure to be at the meeting and he had two goals
in mind: (1) to be a credit to the Y.M.C.A. and (2) to make the Anaheim Y.M.C.A.
a credit to the City and the citizens living in the community.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
minutes of the regular meeting held 3une 13, 1978, were approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,141,095, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
...REgUEST ~OR EXECUTIVE SESSION: City Manager Talley stated that inasmuch as Item
lA2 contained resolutions which he believed had a direct relationship to certain
litigation and labor relations problems, he requested a brief Executive Session
prior to presenting the item. The City Attorney, Mayor Seymour and Councilman
Kott also indicated that they had items to be discussed in Executive Session.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the Council recessed into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED. (1:37 P.M.)
78-1331
City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ i978~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (2:00 P.M.)
139: PAYMENT OF STATE SURPLUS MONIES TO THE CITY: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor was authorized to sign a letter addressed
to the State Controller, Kenneth Cory, concerning his duty to pay State surplus
monies to the City of Anaheim in accordance with Senate Bill 154 and 2212 as
codified in Government Code 16280 and 16280.5. MOTION CARRIED.
123/158: ACQUISITION AND SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT ARE~ Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-657
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 19, 1978, from the
Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-657: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY WITH THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (includes execution of a deed therefor)
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-657 duly passed and adopted.
153: SALARY ADJUSTMENTS - CONFIDEN%IAL, UNREPRESENTED AND STAFF AND SUPERVISORY
MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES: Mr. Talley introduced the proposed resolutions stating
that they all tracked identically to what the bargaining units previously agreed
to.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not believe the proposed increases to be in
the best interest of the taxpayer. It was his opinion that the highest paid
people in the City were asking for an across-the-board 6 percent increase of
their salaries which was not consistent with Proposition 13 which should have
a strong impact on responsible people sitting on the Council. There was a
great difference between 6 percent of $20,000 and 6 percent of $55,000. Further,
most of the people involved had City vehicles as part of their salary package.
If they were willing to give up their cars and/or the money that they received
in lieu of a car, then he might be inclined to go along with the proposed in-
creases. He implored the Council to turn down the proposal because it was infla-
tionary and the dollars added up to quite an appreciable amount compared to
someone on the lower end of the scale.
Councilman Roth asked the City Manager if it was true that all 3 resolutions
were for supervisory personnel, if they represented the non-bargaining units,
and if they were tracking those employees that the Council acknowledged were
going to be given the normal increases per an agreement with them.
Mr. Talley answered that the resolutions were not for supervisory personnel
and Councilman Kott~s connnents did not pertain to the subject resolutions.
They did rePresent the non-bargaining unit--confidential clerical employees,
unrepresented employees,, and staff and supervisors which were the first echelon
of supervisorial people and staff assistants. Lastly, each and every classifica-
tion involved were those scheduled to be adjusted as agreed.
78-i332
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he was going to oppose the resolutions for two reasons:
(1) the pay raises that had been granted as the result of Memorandums of Under-
standing were contracts entered into with bargaining units a year prior. He had
stated that there was a moral, as well as legal obligation, to meet those contracts.
However, the proposed increases, as well as increases that were sure to follow and
would be more specifically what Councilman Kott had referred to, were not of the
legal or moral obligation type, in his opinion. Further, on the basis that the
Council just took an action to inform the State of California that the City was
going to sue in the event it did not receive its $1.5 million from the State
surplus, he believed they were not being consistent with the intent that was
embodied in SB 154. (2) He was going to oppose the resolutions on the premise
that when the majority of the Council approved the City budget, the way it was
approved was by transferring $1.5 million out of the General Benefits Fund into
the General Fund to obtain a balanced budget. The majority of the Council also
promised at that time to make whatever budget adjustments were necessary to make
up that amount later in the fiscal year. The full Council was now in the process
of making up that deficit, but had not made any final decision as to how that would
be accomplished. Thus, granting pay raises to anybody, if not contracted with
already, was improper until the budget was balanced.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney his legal opinion as to whether or
not positive action on the resolutions would harm State bail-out funds relative
to the intent of SB 154.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that SB 154 fund litigation, in him opinion, would
not be endangered in any way by granting of the increases pursuant to the resolu-
tions proposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon stated om that basis, she was going to vote in
favor of the increases. Most of the employees listed were exempt from receiving
any overtime, and they could well be in a position where employees under them
wo~ld be receiving more money than they were. In creating such a situation, it
was likely that the best people would leave at a time when they were needed the
most. Those who had done a good job should be rewarded.
Councilman Overholt then stated his position in support of the proposed resolutions,
the legal question having been answered by the City Attorney. His philosophy was
that a City employee, who was also a citizen of the community, should not be asked
to finance the Jarvis impact. The Council had labored long and hard all day the
previous Wednesday to find areas in which to cut to meet the impact of Proposition
13, and he was sorry that Councilman Kott could not attend that meeting. He reiter-
ated that he would not ask City employees to, in effect, finance the impact to
what he would consider to be a cut in their standard of living by not recognizing
the impact of inflation on those employees.
Councilman Seymour stated that the priorities or decisions he would prefer to make
were relative to whether or not City services would be maintained at their current
levels or others added. He would opt for those types of expenditures before con-
senting to pay raises.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 78R-658 through 78R-660, both inclusive,
for adoption, as recom~nended in memorandum dated October 4, 1978, from the Personnel
Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1333
q,ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-658: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CONFIDENTIAL JOB CLASSES AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-706 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO. (effective October 13, 1978)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-659: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED JOB CLASSES AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-707 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO. (effective October 13, 1978)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-660: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO. (effec-
tive October 13, 1978)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Kott and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-658 through 78R-660, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
123/158: APPRAISAL AND OPTION TO PURCHASE - SHORB WELL'S PROPERTY: Authorizing
an agreement with the County of Orange to split the cost of an appraisal and
approving a 6-month option to purchase the Shorb Well's property located south
of Esperanza Road, east of Imperial.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-661 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-661: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SHORB WELL'S PROPERTY 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-661 duly passed and adopted.
123/115: TELEPHONE PROPOSALS FOR 1000 AND 400 LINE SYSTEMS: Authorizing an agree-
ment with Donald J. Bushor, dba Com Consultant, to prepare specifications for a
1000 line telephone system for City facilities in an amount not to exceed $7,200.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-662 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated October 4, 1978, from the Public Works Director. Refer to
Resolution Book.
78-1334
City. H.~ll~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-662: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND DONALD J. BUSHORE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-662 duly passed and adopted.
146: REPRESENTATION TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY: Councilman
Roth explained that pursuant to Agency's bylaws, delegates and alternates must be
designated by resolution. Further, the subject agency was meeting only every
second or third month in Santa Ana. He was willing to continue serving as the
delegate, but recommended that an alternate be chosen or that someone volunteer.
Councilman Overholt volunteered to be the alternate.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-663 for adoption, naming Council-
man Roth as the delegate to the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency and
Councilman Overholt as the alternate. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-663: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPOINTING A DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION
AGENCY.
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-663 duly passed and adopted.
123: EQUESTRIAN CENTER LEASB AGREEMENT: Approving Lease Agreement with Texaco
Anaheim Hills, Inc., to expand the Equestrian Center from five acres to ten acres,
at an annual fee of $12,000.
Mayor Seymour stated that his personal feeling was that the property involved
was somewhat associated with the golf course problem in the area. Mr. Ruth,
Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts, indicated in his report dated
October 3, 1978, that the market value of the property, if sold, would be
$160,000 or on a lease basis, $12,000 a year. As one member of'the Council,
he did not believe it appropriate to take action on the matter until October 24,
1978, at which time they were going to be discussing the golf course with the
Golf Course Commission, Planning Commission and HACMAC. He therefore suggested
that the matter be continued.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Bettencourt if the continuance to the 24th of
October would cause a problem of any kind.
78-1335
City Ha.!l.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Philip Bettencourt, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, first
introduced Mr. Dan Salcedo, who had joined the Anaheim Hills staff and would
be Mr. Bettencourt's replacement. After the introduction, Mr. Bettencourt
stated that they were interested in reaching a solution on the matter as quickly
as possible relative to the lease extension since they had run out of room.
Mayor Seymour explained that a great deal of input would undoubtedly be received
on October 24, 1978 and was doubtful that a decision would be made this evening.
In any event, the Council would make a decision on their lease, purchase or other
arrangement no later than the week following, October 31, 1978.
Mr. Bettencourt stated that the Company's immediate interest was in the near term
expansion of their lease interest.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Equestrian Center
lease agreement expansion with Anaheim Hills was continued until October 31, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
101: TOWING OF ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY AROUND ANAHEIM
STADIUM: Councilman Kott broached the subject of cars that had.been impounded
for illegal parking after rock concert affairs at the Stadium.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the Council first continue with the items on the
printed agenda so that staff present at the meeting could return to their depart-
ments. Councilman Kott preferred that the matter be discussed presently since
someone was present to speak on the issue.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council first consider the items that
were listed on the agenda so that City employees could return to their jobs. The
motion died for lack of a second.
Liantenant Gaston of the Police Department explained that in the area surrounding
Anaheim Stadium, particularly during rock concerts and then expanded to other
athletic events, four out-of-city tow companies utilizing a provision of the
California Vehicle Code solicited owners of the property in the area. They re-
ceived an affirmative response from some of the property owners in their proposals
to remove all cars that might be parked on their premises during non-business
hours. The owners, in essence, gave carte blanche permission to tow from their
premises. The California Vehicle Code required that the property be posted with
the minimum standard being visibility of the sign from a distance of 25 feet. In
the evening, many people did not see the sign or continued to park where they were
not allowed. Some of the property owners when contacted by tow companies declined
to become involved indicating that they would prefer to preclude parking by erecting
barriers across their driveways or increase the conspicuousness of the posting. The
Police Department had been monitoring the activity and during rock concerts, a number
of vehicles towed grew considerably--350 were towed during one concert and a probable
amount could be twice that figure.
Lieutenant Gaston emphasized that what was of particular concern to the Police
Department was that the signs required to be posted advised the person when they
returned to find their car gone to call the Police Department. The Vehicle Code
required that the tow companies notify the Police Department prior to removal of
the vehicle so that the person could call a central point to find out the location.
--E Il ~ ' ? ..... Ill I I I ~l Illlll Illll I I I I Ill I Illll Il Illll I Il Ill I [] iii .
78-1336
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The Department was besieged with calls, and they could not tell callers where
their vehicles had gone. The inference was that the Police Department must have
had something to do with the situation, when in reality that was not true. Another
problem was that if the calendar date elapsed, additional storage fees were levied
on top of the already escalated towing charge. A $25 to $30 charge could then be
$45 to $50 and some were as high as $70 to $90, with the fee determined by the
towing company. They had also received feedback from people who had their cars
towed and reports that their vehicles were damaged. Many people had been very
frustrated in searching for their cars for many hours. As well, from letters
and stories they received, there was indication that people were treated harshly
when they went to reclaim their vehicles. Guard dogs were used or vehicle owners
were taken one at a time and then pooled and taken to some secluded spot to re-
claim their vehicles. The activity was starting to spread throughout the City
as far west as Knott Avenue and the towing companies being out-of-city towing
companies operating under an Anaheim City business license had solicited
multiple dwelling areas and had received permission from property owners or
managers to likewise post the property, meeting the minimum specifications.
They then would go to the property usually late at night and remove the vehicles.
His department had sent a letter to all towing companies that could possibly be
involved asking them to notify the Police Department. He also had a meeting
with the City Attorney, and they discussed establishing a permit process that
could apply to towing companies who would choose to engage in that type of
activity--that is, private property impounds where they would be dealing with
the property owner and the property owner initiated the transaction which occurred
between the towing company and the vehicle owner. A permit process would give the
Police Department an opportunity to see who was involved and if there was an indi-
cation of excessive fees or unreasonable practices, they could be brought to the
attention of the Council or the City Attorney, and a determination made as to whether
or not the permit should remain in force.
Relative to bounties, Lieutenant Gaston explained that persistently during their
investigation, they found unconfirmed stories that the incentive for some of the
property owners to continue the process was rebate or fee going back to the prop-
erty owner. They contacted many of the property owners directly and suggested
that they increase the conspicuousness of their posting or preclude use of the
property during weekend hours. Some businesses responded and some did not. Those
who did not continued to have a high volume of cars towed from their property.
Councilman Roth stated that the last rock concert was the first he had attended
and he was concerned over what he had seen. He had paid the parking fee and parked
in the lot when thousands had parked outside. Reports had also been received that
gasoline had been stolen from heavy construction vehicles parked on the construction
site on Orangewood Avenue. On Sunday, he drove through some of the streets surround-
ing the Stadium, and they were littered with broken glass, garbage and the like, and
there was a mess on private property where people attending the 'concert had parked.
He agreed that something had to be done relative to the towing situation, but the
City also had the responsibility to protect the business people and private property
owners in the Stadium area. As well, he saw hundreds of cars driving on a piece of
property being graded on Orangewood and the property was posted. Two council people
from Orange had also contacted him regarding trash problems resulting from rock
concerts in Anaheim.
78-1337
City. Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott appreciated Councilman Roth's input, but emphasized that presently --~
the main thrust was relative to the alleged "ripoff" by towing companies which
should be investigated.
Mayor Seymour stated that what he believed would be appropriate, transcending even
a licensing proposal, would be a report with recommendations proposed by the City
Manager, having consulted with the Police Department and the Stadium-Convention
Center-Golf Director Tom Liegler, as well as the City Attorney's Office, to be
submitted within two weeks. The Council could then take definitive action because,
as pointed out by Councilman Roth, they were in the process of expanding the Stadium
and this would be an opportune time to control the situation. As well, relative
to the towing problem, they had to be continually concerned that the public was
treated well at that public facility.
Councilman Roth interjected that he would also like to have the Council consider
giving some direction to the City Manager not to schedule two events at the
Stadium at the same time. The recreational vehicle show was also in progress,
and thus certain parking areas were barricaded.
Mayor Seymour reiterated that he preferred the Council not take'action today.
The two events might not be big events and thus would not cause a problem. He
did not want a quick over-reaction to take place without the proper input.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney if it was an illegal act on the part
of property owners to collect a rebate from towing truck operators, which seemed
to be the basis for most of the problems.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that it implied they were in collusion to cause the
cars to be picked up and depending on the circumstances and nature of the agree-
ment, it could be an illegal act, but he would have to know more facts.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Manager
was directed to submit a report in three weeks, after having consulted with the
Police Department, Mr. Liegler and the City Attorney relative to the matter. MOTION
CARRIED.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTINC
ON CORONADO STREET AT CAL COMP: (Account No. 01-795-6325-5080) Councilman Kott
offered Resolution No. 78R-664 for adoption, awarding a contract to the low bidder
in accordance with the reconm~endation of the City Engineer, in his memorandum
dated October 2, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-664: 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: PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING ON CORONADO STREET AT
CAL COMP, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5080. (Baxter-Griffin
Company, Inc., $10,979)
78-1338
City Hal.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-664 duly passed and adopted.
175: REVISION OF ELECTRICAL UTILITY RULE NOS. 2~ 13 AND 14: After Mr. George
Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, answered several questions posed by Mayor
Seymour for purposes of clarification, Councilman Kott offered Resolution No.
78R-665 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 25, 1978,
from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-665: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND AMENDED BY
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75, 74R-630, 75R-243,
75R-344, 75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528, 76R-817, 77R-464 AND 77R-628.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-665 duly passed and adopted.
164: PETITION REQUESTING RELIEF FROM FLOODING AT ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND LEMON
STREET: Mr. Jim Post, Operations Manager, Electra Motors, 1110 North Lemon
Street, stated that they submitted a petition signed by 10 property owners along
Lemon Street regarding flooding which had been occurring. It was very severe in
the past and had caused not only hardship, but also a severe safety hazard for
all owners along that property. Their business was expanding from 250 up to 275
to 280 employees in the next few months. Construction was also taking place adja-
cent to them which would aggravate the dispersion of water into that corner. Al-
though he appreciated the long-term plans of the City which would alleviate the
problem, they were long-term and might never be accomplished depending on the
financial picture. He wanted to impress upon the Council that it was a severe
problem and a difficult situation for all located along the street, and they would
appreciate a more prompt consideration of the problem.
Mr. James Liberio, 1720 West La Palma, stated that 99 percent of his construction
project on that street was complete, and he was not aware of the flooding condition
before building. It was severe, with water going over the curb, as well as going
from curb to curb. He wanted action taken to mitigate the dangerous situation
caused by the flooding relative to traffic.
Mayor Seymour asked staff if there was any benefit in Council writing a letter to
the County asking them to move the project up on their list of priorities.
78-1339
qitz~.a~l; Anahe.im; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. William Devitt, Assistant City Engineer, explained that the situation pre-
sented a distinct problem because it was not the kind of project the County would
participate in. They regarded it as a local problem and, further, would not parti-
cipate in projects in terms of a drainage queue of less than 500 cfs. While
Engineering recognized that the subject project was a needy one and historically
flooding had occurred, it was a project involving 100 cfs of water, and thus the
County would not participate making it difficult to finance in that sense. They
had proposed to finance it through a street project where storm drains could be
included'. Thus, it was proposed as an A.H.F.P. project with street lighting and
right-of-way acquisition for 1981-82, with construction to take place in 1982-83.
They had a continual maintenance problem primarily with commercial businesses on
Lemon Street with the water coming from a broad drainage area as far as East
Street and from north of the Riverside Freeway. Ultimately, the water travelled
down commercial streets to Lemon. He reiterated ~lat it was a very difficult
project from the standpoint of financing. They had submitted other projects to
the County for A.H.F.P. consideration for the coming fiscal year, and it was con-
ceivable, if desired by the Council, to move the subject project up by a fiscal
year. There were, however, other projects which were meritorious projects and
consideration would have to be given as to the effects on those projects.
Mayor Seymour asked that the Council be provided with the list of worthy projects
to ascertain if it was worthwhile to move the Lemon Street project up on the list.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it was on the basis of many like situations through-
out the City that she asked that a bond issue be placed on the April ballot, but was __~
overruled. She questioned if it would be possible to put a bond issue for storm
drains on the next consolidated election ballot.
Mayor Seymour answered that he did not believe that would be appropriate. He would
not oppose asking the citizens if that was the way they wanted to spend their money,
but until they stated that in the form of a bond issue, the Council had the respon-
sibility to finance the subject projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. He would, there-
fore, be interested in seeing a report that would place the project in proper per-
spective so that the Council could decide if it should be moved up in priority.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council consider again the multi-million
dollars worth of projects pending where storm drains were necessary and place a bond
issue on the ballot in May 1979, covering those projects. The motion died for lack
of a second.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Manager obtain a report from Engi-
neering within two weeks setting priorities of projects for Council consideration
and potential restructuring of those priorities to more quickly accommodate the
subject request. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:10 P.M.)
78-1340
City Ha~l~..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10p 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NOS. 10407~ 10408~ 10409 AND 10410 (REVISION NO. 3): Request by Anaheim Hills,
Inc., for waiver of lot line requirements of the Hillside Grading Ordinance that
lot lines be located two to three feet from the top of slopes, property located
at the south side of Willowick Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road, was submitted.
Miss Santalahti outlined the findings given in the staff report and stated that
the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject request.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed request for waiver.
Mr. Dan Salcedo, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated they were
on record in support of the Planning Commission recommendations.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, waiver of lot
line requirements of the Hillside Grading Ordinance on Tentative Tract Nos. 10407,
10408, 10409 and 10410 (Revision No. 3), was approved in accordance with Planning
Commission recommendations. MOTION CARRIED.
155: PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 220: Report submitted by
the City of Anaheim, to consider increasing the seating capacity of the Stadium
from 43,000 to 70,000, property located in the area bounded by Katella on the
north, the Orange Freeway (route 57) on the east, Orangewood Avenue on the south,
and State College Boulevard on the west.
The City Clerk reported that a letter had been received from the City of Orange,
expressing their concerns relative to traffic, parking and noise and made a part
of the record.
Planning Director Ron Thompson stated that representatives were present from the
firms of L. D. King, Phillips Brandt and Reddick and Mohle, Perry and Associates
to answer any questions.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to Environmental Impact Report No. 220
relating to the Anaheim Stadium expansion.
Mr. Furman Roberts, City Attorney, City of Orange, referred to the letter dated
September 27, 1978, from his city in which concerns were expressed relative to
traffic patterns. He did not have an opportunity to examine all the language in
the EIR, but he understood there was a general statement made that needed more
explanation as listed in the aforementioned letter. They also noted in the EIR,
that a suggestion was made that traffic could be handled on some of the local
arterial highways rather than the freeway, which was not too clear. He wanted to
know if a traffic pattern had ever been presented specifically showing the entire
area. Without that kind of information, it was difficult to make an environmental
assessment.
A second concern was that of noise emanating from the Stadium, not the organized
sound coming from games or a rock concert, but the music that occurred from time
to time and at rather unusual hours outside of the Stadium walls from "musicians"
awaiting entry into the various facilities.
78-1341
City ~al~ Anahei%~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A final concern was that of parking. There was talk of increasing the number of
parking spaces at the Stadium, but they wanted to be certain that they were perma-
nent additions to the parking lot to handle the anticipated crowds. They did not
want to see some of that parking later taken for the commercial development sched-
uled further down the line, thus creating an overflow onto streets with cars park-
ing everywhere. Those were the main concerns: (1) definition of what was meant by
local arterials, (2) specific traffic pattern anticipated, (3) permanent parking
spaces and (4) noise.
Mr. Larry Greer, Mohle, Perry and Associates, stated they were the traffic consul-
tants on the project. In terms of defining local arterials, there was a map in
the report which identified the directions of approach to the Stadium site by
traffic coming to an event. Approximately 47 percent of that would be southbound
in the Santa Ana Freeway corridor. They were also anticipating some advance
signing that would divert some of the traffic across the Riverside Freeway and
bring it down the Orange Freeway where there was more capacity from that side, and
also to preclude it from the Santa Ana Freeway in advance of the Stadium itself.
Using the 3 or 4 previous interchanges would bring the traffic across Katella
and then down State College Boulevard to the Stadium.
Mr. Steve Ross, Phillips Brandt and Reddick, Newport Beach, referred to the
addendum to the Anaheim Stadium expansion environmental impact report containing
responses to traffic, noise and parking. The noise impacts were fully identified
in the document. Those related to traffic and the effect on the City of Orange
were in direct proportion to the traffic flows that Mr. Greer had pointed out.
In relation to the noise emanating from the Stadium itself, the expansion would
mitigate much of that noise since the Stadium would be enclosed with concrete and
other structural materials. That, in itself, would mitigate a vast percentage of
the noise from the sporting events, as well as other recreational activities.
Relative to parking provisions, the Stadium parking facility would be expanded by
approximately 1,500 spaces as a result of the expansion. It was concluded that
even at peak capacity events, there would be a surplus of approximately 160 parking
spaces. While the comments of the City of Orange were well taken and sincere, Mr.
Ross was of the opinion that the EIR before the Council was adequate and worth
Council certification.
Mr. Roberts asked if there were plans involving exiting traffic because there
were problems in that respect. Vehicles tended to park on streets some distance
away from the Stadium to avoid the parking fee or to exit quickly. He did not
have an opportunity to see the enclosures relative to mitigation of noise and
was not certain that the question was answered about parking as to future expan-
sion that might take it away.
Mayor Seymour stated that there were two contracts embodied in the expansion; one
being the Stadium lease and the other, contract for development.. It was the latter
contract that would cause the citizens of Orange some concerns relative to parking.
He pointed out, however, that that agreement calling for development on the Stadium
parking lot also mandated that every parking space removed be replaced in the form
of a parking structure. Thus the City of Orange, as well as the citizens of Anaheim,
could look forward to adequate parking on site.
78-1342
Ci_ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Furman Roberts a'sk~d how traffic flow would be handled both going into and
out of the Stadium.
Mr. Greer stated that typically in terms of exiting traffic, it would be a reverse
pattern of the approach traffic, assuming that there were interchange on and off
ramps at similar locations. This would also be influenced somewhat by the traffic
control officers directing traffic in and around the site. A diagram indicating
the flow was contained in the EIR appendix, figure 2, page 14.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that EIR No. 220 be certified as being in com-
pliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopting the Statement
of Overriding Considerations. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, asked
that if the item was approved that the Statement of Overriding Considerations be
fully read into the record.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour read the Statement of Overriding Considerations in its entirety for
purposes of the record.
"STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - EIR NO. 220, ANAHEIM STADIUM EXPANSION
Whereas, the Anaheim City Council has reviewed EIR No. 220 for the proposed ex-
pansion of Anaheim Stadium and has determined that said report identified the
following potential significant effects which said project could have on the
environment:
Additional traffic associated with major events such as professional football
games and rock concerts would cause an increase in congestion on adjacent streets
and highways and associated increases in noise and air pollutant emissions result-
ing from the increase in traffic; and
Whereas, such environmental impacts would be of limited duration and occur only a
few times a year; and
Whereas, the City Council hereby finds that the project would bring substantial
economic and social benefits to the City and residents of the area by providing
employment and tax revenues and by enhancing the image of the City nationwide,
thereby attracting additional tourists to the City's various commercial-recreational
facilities; and
Whereas, said economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the miti-
gation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Now, therefore, the City Council does adopt this Statement of Overriding Consider-
ations in approving the expansion of Anaheim Stadium."
78-1343
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
105: ANAHEIM YOUTH COMMISSION - AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the amendments to the Anaheim Youth
Commission Bylaws were approved as recommended in memorandum dated October 3,
1978, from the Youth Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
129: FIREWORKS PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit, submitted by Pyro
Spectaculars, on behalf of Los Alamitos High School, to discharge fireworks on
October 20, 1978, 8:30 P.M., at the Western High School Stadium, was approved.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
167: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE: Request by Robert L.
Johnston, Commercial Bankers Real Estate, requesting a partial refund of the
traffic signal assessment fee paid in connection with property located at the
southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, was submitted.
Councilman Roth moved to approve a refund in the amount of $3,294 to the Anaheim
Partnership as requested in the applicant's letter dated September 29, 1978.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was going to be
a cut-off date relative to such requests. It was becoming a big joke, but the
fact remained that there still were tremendous needs relative to traffic signals
and costs were rising continually, with the result that the City would not be able
to react.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the Council no longer consider
requests for refunds on traffic signal assessment fees paid and that the fees be
applied under the present schedule to enable the City to act relative to those
matters. The motion died for lack of a second.
167: REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES: Request by Frank E.
Wilcox, California Lutheran Bible School, for an exemption from the traffic signal
assessment fee, which was paid, in connection with property located at 631 South
Western Avenue, was submitted.
The Mayor asked if a representative from the California Lutheran Bible School was '
present; no one was present.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that the subject request was quite
different in that requests received up until now were for adjustments of 'the
fees; this was for an exemption of the entire fee because a non'profit organi-
zation was involved. He did not consider it justified since non-profit organiza-
tions generated traffic just as profit-making organizations.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the request for
an exemption from the traffic signal assessment fee by the California Lutheran
Bible School in connection with property located at 631 South Western Avenue was
denied. MOTION CARRIED. '
78-1344
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10p 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST BY MATREYEK HOMES TO USE ALTERNATE FENCING MATERIAL: Request to use
steel fencing adjacent to mobile home park in Anaheim Shores development in lieu
of block wall fencing as indicated in the original plans submitted in conjunction
with Conditional Use Permit No. 1574, was submitted.
The Mayor asked if a representative was present from Matreyek Homes. Mr. Bart
Herbst, builder, indicated his presence to answer any questions.
Mayor Seymour stated that the concern he heard expressed from the neighbors per-
tained to the wall on the west adjacent to single-family residences. He asked if
contact had been made with those residential owners on the west side.
Miss Santalahti explained that only one property owner would be affected directly
by the subject request. The property owner was aware of the request and had no
objection, but she had not seen anything in writing and staff did not go out to
check. If there was a real concern and the Council deemed it appropriate, she
suggested their approval subject to Matreyek Homes submitting a letter from the
property owner acknowledging the alternate fencing material and indicating their
acceptance of it.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the subject request t.o use steel
fencing in lieu of block wall fencing be approved, subject to the stipulation out-
lined by the Assistant Director for Zoning. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Membel and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the Arizona Power Plan and Transmission Line Siting Committee,
Arizona Public Service Company applying for a Certificate of Environmental Com-
patibility for two additional generating units at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station.
b. 105: Anaheim Arts Council - list of Board of Directors for 1978-79, list of
current members and the Annual Financial Report as of June 30, 1978.
c. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of September 18, 1978.
d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of September 20, 1978.
e. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of September 12, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilman Kott, the following claims were denied and referred to the City's
insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator and the Application to
Present a Late Claim was denied:
78-1345
City Hall~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
a. Claim submitted by J. Stevens School, aka Steve Raynor, for personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about June 17,
1978.
b. Claim submitted by Clifford Senior for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident at Pearson Park's outdoor theater on or about August 22,
1978.
c. Claim submitted by Douglas E. Millard for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about August 9, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Mrs. Dana Mendenhall for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of an electrical problem at 165 Jeanine Way on or about
September 19, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Allen K. Williamson for personal damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of wrongful imprisonment and prosecution on or about July 18
1978. '
f. Claim submitted by Ronald R. Noblett for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about June 2, 1978.
g. Claim submitted by Dennis Andersen for food loss purportedly sustained as a
result of a power shortage at 3411 West Thornton Avenue, and for loss of tropical
fish on or about September 24, 1978.
h. Claim submitted by Mrs. Carmen La Fontaine for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a power shortage at 801 North Loara Street #101 on or about
September 24, 1978.
i. Claim submitted by Bruce Bialosky for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by a City employee on or about August 26, 1978.
j. Claim submitted by Michael James O'Brien for personal injuries and property
damage purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned
vehicle on or about August 28, 1978.
k. Claim submitted by Ralph M. Mejia for property damage purportedly sustained
as a result of a tree falling on his automobile at Clementine and Santa Ana Streets
on or about September 24, 1978,
1. Claim submitted by Roger Cassano for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of being forcibly dragged from his motorcycle by Contemporary Security
guards at Anaheim Stadium on or about July 23, 1978.
m. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance, Miguel Escalera, insured, for property
damages purportedly sustained as a result of a traffic signal malfunction at
State College and Katella on or about July 28, 1978.
n. Claim submitted by Ruth A. Lopez for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about June 3, 1978.
o. Claim submitted by Satosh Ujiiye for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a power shortage at 2037 West Crone Avenue on or about September 6,
1978.
78-1346
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
p. Claim submitted by Betty L. Logelin for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident at Anaheim Hills Golf Course on or about August 2, 1978.
q. Claim submitted by April Oates for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a slip and fall at Anaheim Stadium on or about July 10, 1978.
r. Claim submitted by Myron Lee and Sharon Lee Foster for property damages purport-
edly sustained as a result of a tree falling on their automobile at 128 South
West Street on or about September 5, 1978.
s. Claim submitted by George Maschmeyer for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a slip and fall by Monette Maschmeyer at the Stadium on or about
June 26, 1978.
t. Claim submitted by the Southern California Gas Company for damages to a gas
main at 427 South Westridge purportedly sustained as a result of water maintenance
excavation work by a City crew on or about September 5, 1978.
u. Claim submitted by Christopher C. Calvi for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a slip and fall accident at the Stadium on or about
August 15, 1978.
v. Claim submitted by Jackie Alba for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about JUly 12, 1978.
w. Claim submitted by Jose Alba, Jr., for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about July 12, 1978.
x. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance, Richard Hombert, insured, for damages
to his vehicle purportedly sustained as a result of a traffic signal mechanical
failure at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard on or about
July 15, 1978.
y. Claim submitted by Ana Madrigal for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a traffic signal malfunction at Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana
Street on or about June 21, 1978.
z. Claim submitted by Susie Moya for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a traffic signal malfunction at Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana
Street on or about June 21, 1978.
aa. Claim submitted by Sally Robinson for monetary damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of food loss caused by a power failure at 927 South Bruce
Street #D on or about September 24, 1978.
bb. Claim submitted by Louise Whiteman for monetary damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of food loss caused by a power failure on or about September 24,
1978.
cc. Claim submitted by N. David Gady for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about July 18, 1978.
dd. Claim submitted by Richard Trinadad Montoya, III and Teresa Montoya for personal
injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a shooting at the Carousel (Howard's)
Restaurant in the 1200 block of North East Street, on or about August 7, 1978.
78-1347
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10p 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ee. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Francisco Arteaga
for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim
Police on or about January 29, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-666
through 78R-671, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-666: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (The Servite
Fathers; The Euclid Romneya Company; Canyon Hills Estates; Texaco Anaheim Hills,
Inc.; William S. Petrulis)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-667: 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: TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE AND LA PALMA
AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-794-6325-4040; 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 November 2, 1978, at 2:00 P.M.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-668: 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: HIDDEN CANYON
RESERVOIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-31200; 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 November 9, 1978, at 2:00 P.M.)
103: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-669: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 24 ANNEXATION. (2.5 acres, south of Nohl Ranch
Road, west of Old Bucket Lane)
103: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-670: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE ~ERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 25 ANNEXATION. (2.8 acres located south of the
intersection of Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl Ranch Road)
103: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-671: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 26 ANNEXATION. (34.3 acres located south of
Nohl Ranch Road and west of the southerly extension of Imperial Highway)
78-1348
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-666 through 78R-671, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
123/101: ORDINANCE NO. 3917: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3917 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3917: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FACILITY LEASE
DATED AUGUST 31, 1978, AND AN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SITE LEASE OF THE SAME
DATE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENTS.
(Anaheim Stadium, Inc.)
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. 3917 duly passed and adopted.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3918: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3918 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3918: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
7.34.020 AND 7.34.060.020 OF TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.34 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 7.34.020. 7.34.060.020, 7.34.065, 7.34.135,
7.34.155, 7.34.165, AND 7.34.185 TO TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.34 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES.
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. 3918 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3919: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3919 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3919: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(30), RS-HS-22,000)
78-1349
Qity. Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3919 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3920 AND 3921: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3920
and 3921 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3920: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(15), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3921: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(21), ML)
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. 3920 and 3921 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3922: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3922 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3922: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(87), ML)
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. 3922 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3923: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3923 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3923: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(85), C-R)
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. 3923 duly passed and adopted.
78-1350
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3924: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3924 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3924: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(31), RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3924 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3925: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3925 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3925: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-31, RM-2400)
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. 3925 duly passed and adopted.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3926: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3926 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3926: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 4.90 RELATING TO ESCORT BUREAUS,
INTRODUCTORY SERVICES AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3927: Mr. Harold Moffit, 2060 South Euclid (business), asked
to speak to the redefinition of model studio. It was his opinion that it was being
redefined and expanded so that it could include dancing schools in which employees
sometimes instructed in the nude. To his knowledge, he owned and operated the
only such business in Anaheim and had done so for approximately two years. It was
indicated that the proposed changes were needed so that certain illegal businesses
could be better policed. In two years of operation, neither he nor his employees
had committed any crimes. He had been cited by the City twice for ordinance vio-
lations. On the first occasion, the Police maintained his business was actually
a dance hall and thus required a conditional use permit. The jury agreed it was
a dance school and not a dance hall, and he needed no permit. He was again taken
to jail and to court for operating a model studio without the proper permit, but
the jury again felt it was a dance studio and not a model studio. In spite of
the fact that two juries decided in his favor, the proposed change was, in effect,
to distort the definition of model studio so that it could include his business,
and he main.tained that was going above the jury. It would cost him more time
and money and require him to have a permit which he believed he would be denied
in spite of what he had never done and in spite of what he could possibly do to
acquire the permit. He believed the proposed action was singling out his business,
and it was unjust. The Police should enforce the law, but not determine who operates
a legitimate business and who did not.
78-1351
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3927 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3927: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 4.31, SECTIONS 4.31.010, 4.31.080, 4.31.110, 4.31.190, 4.31.210 AND
REPEALING SECTION 4.31.220 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FIGURE
MODEL STUDIOS.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3928 THROUGH 3930: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3928
through 3930, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3928: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(87), CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 3929: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-46(1), CO)
ORDINANCE NO. 3930: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-13, RM-1200)
144: NEW BUS ROUTES INSTALLED IN CITY BY OCTD: Councilwoman Kaywood explained
that the OCTD had installed new bus routes in the City, with the City having chosen
the locations. Some people seem to be concerned that giant buses would be traveling
down their streets, thus she wanted to clarify that mini-buses were going to be used
with a capacity for 19 passengers. Although it was confusing on one hand, she hoped
it would be a blessing to the people in the City. During the peak hours in the
morning and the afternoon, regular bus service would be in effect at 30-minute
intervals. During off-peak hours, Dial-A-Ride service would be in effect where
a phone call to OCTD would bring curb-to-curb service.
135: JOINT MEETING RELATIVE TO ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: Councilman Roth re-
quested that good press coverage be given regarding the upcoming joint meeting
between the Council, Planning Commission, HACMAC and the Golf Course Commission
relative to the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to be held Tuesday, October 24, 1978,
at 7:30 P.M., in the Anaheim Room of the Convention Center. Some citizens might
still be under the impression that the meeting was going to be held October 17
1978, as originally scheduled. '
105: JOINT MEETING BETW~mN COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AND HOUSING COMMISSION: The subject meeting was briefly discussed and it was con-
firmed that it would take place on Tuesday, November 28, 1978, in the evening.
114: RULING ON ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS: Councilman Kott referred to a
memo from the City Clerk relative to the subject stating uncm±men will be
, 'lCo --~
in attendance at any meeting from which he may be absent while engaged in official
City business determined by a majority vote of the City Council." He wanted to
know what was considered official City business and what it included in terms of
not being at a Council meeting, but yet being counted as being present.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he believed the statement referred to the Anaheim
Municipal Code which meant that if a Council Member was on City business, for
instance in Los Angeles on a day when there was a Council meeting, if by majority
vote of the Council, that was considered to be official City business, the
78-1352
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Council person could be determined to be in attendance at the meeting. He be-
lieved the City Clerk's memorandum referred specifically in this instance to the
League of California Cities Convention and thus would not apply because there
was no meeting at all held on that date (September 26, 1978). The Council had
determined that day was a day when Council Members would be attending the League's
Annual Convention.
Councilman Kott stated the Council determined that there would be no meeting,
but he voted in opposition and was present in the Council Chamber. He assumed,
therefore, that meant he would not receive anything for that meeting.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was the way he interpreted the situation.
101: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING WITH LOS ANGELES RAMS: Mayor Seymour reported
that a Liaison Council Committee meeting was held on Saturday, October 7, 1978,
at which Councilman Overholt, himself and the City Manager attended. They met
with Mr. Carroll Rosenbloom and his attorney, Mr. Strenger, as well as one of
his associates, Mr. Jack Teele, at the invitation of Mr. Rosenbloom at his resi-
dence. The purpose was to finalize some undetermined points relative to the
agreement on the Stadium lease. It was fair to state that the meeting was
successful and the Council could expect to be looking at a finalized agreement
within a couple of weeks.
148: MEMBERSHIP IN U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS: Mayor Seymour stated that relative
to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he had taken it unilaterally upon himself this
year not to have the City become a member of the Conference primarily because of
the cost of membership of $2,250. He also advised the City Manager that he did
not think it appropriate that the City become a member. Subsequently, he received
a communication from the President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and rather than
making a unilateral decision, he was requesting Council's advice. He thereupon read
the letter he received after which he asked the Council if they would care to con-
sider a different decision.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Mayor would be attending the Conference and also
if there was anything the Conference could do that the League of Cities or SCAG
could not do.
Mayor Seymour stated he would attend the conference if the City was a member, but
he did not believe that the expenditure of taxpayers' funds in the amount of mem-
bership required could be worth the benefits received. Relative to the latter
question, he deferred to the City Manager.
City Manager Talley stated that, in his opinion, the U.S. Conference of Mayors
was perhaps the most prestigous and influential of all public interest groups
merely because the mayors of large cities were the only people that could be-
come members and therefore, both Congress and the Administration paid more
attention to big city mayors than any other single group.
Councilman Kott stated that he would vote against the Mayor joining because he
did not see any need to belong to every group and organization, and a sizable
amount of money was involved.
78-i353
_City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would be guided by the M~ayor's Judgment
because it was dependent upon his particular interest in the organization,
and it was a matter of time and priorities. He did not want a precedent set
that Anaheim would never participate again.
Councilman Roth stated he would be opposed to Joining this year, but would
perhaps consider doing so in ensuing years. Although the cost for membership
was $2,250, transportation, lodging, food, etc., had to be considered, as well
as the implementation of Proposition 13.
As discussed, by general consent, the Council determined that the City would not
become a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors at this time.
RECESS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City
Council recessed to 7:00 P.M. for a hearing requested by the Protect Our Children
League. MOTION CARRIED. (4:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:00 P.M.)
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
172: HEARING - PROTECT OUR ~!LDREN T.~GUE: Mrs. Karen Townsend, Chairperson,
addressed the Council regarding the installation of a traffic signal at Orangewood
Avenue and Mountain View Avenue, four-way stop signs at Mountain View Avenue and
Wakefield Avenue, Leatrice Lane and Pearson Avenue, and speedbumps in the alleyways.
City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter had been received from a Mrs. Keller
in favor of the request dated October 6, 1978 and copies submitted to the Council.
A report had also been submitted by the City Engineer recommending denial of the
request.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that the present problem evolved as a
result of a fatal collision at the unprotected crosswalk at Mountain View Avenue
and Orangewood. A residential district lay to the north of Orangewood and a
7-11 Store to the south which attracted a great amount of traffic from the district.
Ponderosa Park was almo adjacent to the crosswalk, but pedestrians did not normally
use it to gain access to the park. The accident was an unavoidable one, and the
driver was cited for felony manslaughter.
Mr. Singer then briefed the Council on the recommendations made relative to the
request of the residents in the area as outlined in the memorandum dated October 2
1978: ,
1. Traffic Signal at Orangewood Avenue and Mountain View Avenue: That the request
be denied because the intersection did not meet the normal warrant required and
his department did not budget for it.
78-1354
City H.al!.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
2. Four-way Stop Signs at Mountain View and Wakefield~ Leatrice Lane & PearsoL~
~venue: None of the intersections met the warrants for minimum vehicular traffic
volumes, accident records, pedestrian traffic and vehicular speed. Unwarranted
stop signs usually created a contempt for the law and they did not reduce speed.
Studies throughout the country revealed that stop signs increased speeds an
average of 2 to 3 miles per hour beyond the stop sign after slowing down at
the location of the sign. They had however issued work orders to provide what
was called "day lighting", the painting of red zones, so that the intersection
could be clearly visible, as well as pedestrians, at all approaches which should
eliminate most of the problems at the subject location.
3. "Speed Bumps" in Alleyways: They had been advised against speed bumps be-
cause the City would be liable for any vehicle going out of control as a result
of the installation of an obstruction in the roadway.
Mr. Singer recommended that none of the requests be granted and, as well, that
the crosswalk at Mountain View and Orangewood be removed because it was unpro-
tected.
Mayor Seymour opened the hearing to the public for their input.
The following persons spoke in support of the request of the neighborhood:
Mr. Dick Benbow, 331 East Leatrice, spoke as the representative of the Protect
Our Children League of Anaheim, comprised of 1072 petition signers ranging from
merchants, apartment owners and residents of the area. He submitted the petitions
to the Council which were gathered in only one week's time. Working from a posted
map of the area, Mr. Benbow stated that they were originally petitioning for 4-way
stops at Wakefield Avenue, Leatrice Lane and Pearson Avenue intersecting Mountain
View. They had also petitioned for a 4-way traffic signal at Orangewood and
Mountain View, but as a result of a discussion with Mr. Singer relative to the
impact of Proposition 13, they decided that more appropriately a 4-way stop be
added at the intersection instead of the signalized traffic control. In conjunc-
tion with that, they also requested that a 4-way blinking red light be added. The
map also indicated light standards presently in position in the area. He pointed
to the light standards that were not adequately lighting up the intersection of
Orangewood and Mountain View. The new standard, Cobra head, which was added near
the intersection, did light up half of that intersection. As well, every one of
the intersections were school crossings where children were picked up and delivered
by bus and that was one of their major concerns. They were aware of the pressure
that was brought to bear on the Council relative to optimum vehicle flow and control
by various interest groups, but they questioned whether those should be accomplished
at the sake of pedestrians, especially children. Their pedestrian problem was one
where the vehicle had taken over control of the crosswalks.
Mr. Dan Smey, 318 East Wakefield, apartment owner, manager and resident of the
area, spoke on the following four topics:
1. 4-way Stops at the Intersection of Mountain View-Wakefield, Leatrice an,;
Pea. rson: In 1976, because of the traffic problems in the area, they requested
traffic control at the subject intersections, but were denied. It was the City
Engineer's professional opinion that children would disregard traffic movement
and rely on the safety zone crosswalks, resulting in more injuries at the inter-
sections. They also requested that safety bumps be installed in the alleys and
78-1355
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M,
the reply was the same as that previously provided by Mr. Singer. The alterna-
tives were to institute a petition and approach the City Council and/or form an
association with legal representation, but both were dropped because of the time
involved. The fact remained that a need still existed to protect the pedestrian
right-of-way not only in their area, but also in all the areas within Anaheim.
2. Area C.omposition and Needs: Their area encompassed less than one-half square
mile and contained 710 individual family residents composed of one residential
home and 98 apartment buildings. They had problems in their area and just by
being present at the meeting and being united they were starting to solve those
problems. The inherent vehicle and pedestrian traffic hazards were directly
related to the density of the area which was also second to none in Police
Department responses relative to traffic, domestic, criminal and youth type vio-
lations.
Mr. Smey continued that they needed red painted curbs for school bus loading and
unloading, speed bumps in the alleyways, and motorist alert signs along Orangewood
and Haster to depict "caution--high density area", as well as cautionary signs
depicting children as being present in the area. The alleyways were thoroughfares
in themselves and very heavily trafficked. They needed better street lighting
illumination, not only at the subject intersection, but also throughout the whole
area because in the evening the neighborhood presented a different picture and
people were subject to various types of crime-related incidents which Police
statistics could bear out.
3. Owners and Residents' Best Interest: Mr. Smey then noted the large taxpayer
base involved considering the 710 families in the area, as well as the revenue
derived from the merchants in property tax monies going to the City of Anaheim.
He then posed the following questions: Should their area needs be different
than another area? Were they, as taxpayers, r~ceiving adequate traffic control
and aids based on their area's needs? He then mentioned the park that was lo-
cated in the area (Ponderosa) which drew a large number of people from the
apartment complexes. He then pointed to the routes which were used to get to
the park and noted the natural entry way mid-block on Orangewood directly
across from Sprague. Children did not walk to the intersections since the mid-
block crossing was so convenient.
4. Motorists' Attitudes: The lack of pedestrian right-of-way was escalating at
an ever-increasing and alarming rate. In that regard, he posed the following
question: Was pedestrian right-of-way to prevail as the highest priority in
regulating and planning surface street traffic? If yes, to what extent was the
City prepared to publicize and enforce it and if No, then perhaps Anaheim was
not a residential community or the best place to bring up children.
Phyllis Johnson, 310 East Wakefield, explained that she had been involved in
3 near misses at the intersection of Orangewood and Mountain View. She was also
involved in a survey which they conducted over a 12-hour period at that inter-
section watching children and adults and vehicles. Her observation was very
disconcerting to her to the point that she would not allow her child to ever
cross that street.
78-1356
City Hall.~. ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Sid Sawyer, 319 Leatrice, explained some of the traffic problems in the
area, noting the high speed of cars and that Orangewood narrowed down to
2 lanes from 4. He maintained that the Police reports were obsolete because
when the Police used radar, it was only a short period of time before everyone
in the neighborhood knew they were at the corner through the use of CBs. Thus,
the results of the report which would show that only a few people were caught
speeding did not reflect the true facts. Further, costs were mentioned relative
to traffic control. He maintained that the important thing was to consider the
value of human lives.
Linda Straite, 206 East Wakefield, recounted and described an accident that
occurred on September 12, 1978, at 7:30 a.m. at the intersection of Leatrice and
Mountain View in which she was one of the three cars involved. At that time,
school children were waiting to be picked up and the results could have been
tragic if the cars were traveling at a higher speed and had jumped the curb.
The stop signs were needed because children were not always aware of what was
going on around them. It was necessary to make the adult drivers responsible
people.
Mr. Fred Christensen, 2054 Sprague, stated he was an apartment owner at Sprague
and Pearson and then rmlayed some of the incidents he experienced relative to
traffic problems in the area. He also noted that the entrance to Ponderosa Park
which covered three quarters of a block in both directions was directly in the
middle of the block with no crosswalks in between. Other problems related to the
fact that cars parked right up to the corner and literally on the corners on both
sides of the street and alleyways rendering it impossible to see approaching cars
when exiting onto Haster or Orangewood. As well, there was lack of Police patrol
of the alleyways and streets at night and lack of enforcement of parking violations.
Lita Jeggers, 117 Leatrice Lane, relayed two personal experiences she had at the
subject crosswalk involving her daughter and son which could have resulted in
bodily harm.
Mr. Warren Baker, 2083 Mountain View, explained that the little girl who was killed
in the fatal accident was a child of a tenant living in their apartment house. He
expressed his personal feelings and the relationsip that existed between him and
the young family. He then read a letter dated September 9, 1978, sent to the
Anaheim Traffic Division, from a woman who was a witness to the fatal accident,
a copy of which was submitted to the Council, expressing her feelings and sorrow
over the incident and urging some form of traffic control at the subject inter-
section.
Bette Gilliary, 2074 Mountain View, relayed an incident which occurred two and
one-half years prior involving her son who was struck by a vehicle in front of
the park between Pearson and Sprague where cars were parked right up to the curb.
She maintained if there was a stop sign or a method of slowing the traffic or if
the curbs were painted, the incident might not have occurred.
Mr. Benbow then relayed some statistics gathered by the Anaheim Police Department
revealing that the number of accidents occurring over a 4-year period in the area,
over half of which occurred at Mountain View and Orangewood, totaling 58 with
approximately 30 injuries including the recent fatality. He also elaborated on
78-1357
C_i~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the survey which the neighbors conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on a Saturday ---
which revealed a total of 4,450 vehicles crossing the intersection of Orangewood
and Mountain View. As well, 1,271 adults and 698 children used the 3 existing
crosswalks at that intersection or approximately 58 pedestrians an hour, or nearly
one a minute. Mr. Singer's conclusion was to eliminate the crosswalks, but they
wanted stop signs as it was imperative to stop the traffic traveling on Orangewood
at speeds averaging 45 MI~H. The area was too heavily populated for fast traffic.
Mr. Benbow continued that relayed to him by Mr. Robert Gassio, Principal of Paul
Revere Elementary School, in the one-half square mile encompassing the subject
neighborhood, over one-half of the school's population was comprised of the
children in that neighborhood which did not include junior high, high school and
pre-school students. Mr. Gassio also expressed in his letter dated October 2, 1978
to Mr. Singer, his concern for necessary direction to be taken to eliminate
traffic hazards for the students in the area. The PTA and the Community Advisory
Committee of Paul Revere School also expressed their' support of the neighborhood's
request. In concluding, Mr. Benbow stated that he could not think of a residential
area in Anaheim that had a greater need than theirs for proper traffic control.
Their question was--what had priority in Anaheim, pedestrians or vehicles? The
traffic must be stopped for the sake of the children.
Mr. Ralph Wright, 2301 Mountain View, stated that he lived right on the subject
corner and some nights it was impossible to sleep because of the traffic, kids
and cars and vehicles "burning rubber". Relative to Police protection, he main-
tained there was none and the use of the park was being abused by people, with
no Policemen in sight.
Mr. Smey then commented on Police protection stating that response was normally
timely, but between the hours of 11:00 and 12:30 when the Police went to a shift
change, it was recognizable throughout the area and response time was slow. CBers
intercepted calls and then those causing problems would leave the scene. Mr. Smey
emphasized that the presence of the neighborhood at the meeting represented a con-
cern and if the Council did not do anything, they were going to lose a lot of
people, and they would probably lose Anaheim. The Council was going to have to
give them tools with which to work and from that point on, they could make their
neighborhood a good place in which to live.
Mr. Thomas Catterson, a resident of West Street, stated that all the complaints
received pertained to the growth of Anaheim and that growth should be controlled.
If it was not checked, continual problems would occur.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth spoke to Mr. Singer's recommendation to eliminate the unprotected
crosswalk and relayed an incident which occurred in front of his business where
an unprotected crosswalk had been removed. After its removal, no accidents of
a serious nature occurred. The Traffic Division also had statistics regarding
th~many accidents that occurred at unprotected crosswalks because such walks
gave the pedestrian a false sense of security, but did nothing to slow down the
driver.
~1~ T ~lflll Ill!~lllllfl~llII II II Ill l Illl I
78-1358
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that the area involved was different from most any other in
the City, and the fact that made it so was its density. It was perhaps the most
heavily populated area in the City and as Mr. Smay pointed out, the planning was
poor. This occurred when land use and development took place initially. There
was a lack of adequate parking, a high density of apartment units per acre,
inadequate lighting, and the area had one of the highest crime rates in the City.
He was very familiar with that neighborhood and the traffic problems in existence
on Orangewood am it proceeded to Mountain View. There were also some properties
in the neighborhood owned by people who did not maintain them. He believed the
neighborhood was in the process of making up its mind whether it was going to
deteriorate or pull itself together to become a nice place to live. Although the
problems had been vocalized as one of traffic and traffic control, he believed it
to be much broader. The residents were saying that they had a number of problems.
Mr. Singer, a professional expert, based his recommendations upon the vast statis-
tics available to him, but those did not take into account the peculiarities of a
given small neighborhood. He (Seymour) was sensitive in trying to answer their
needs if they, in turn, would also assist. The Council had tried to turn matters
around in a neighborhood not too distant from theirs, and progress was being made.
They had encouraged the formation of a neighborhood association in facing similar
problems much as lighting, traffic, parking, speeding and crime. He encouraged
the subject neighborhood to also form an association and if the Council was of a
mind, staff could be provided to work with them in a much less formal environment.
With their help and the City's help, the neighborhood could be saved.
Mayor Seymour continued that he was inclined to give favorable consideration at
the outset to a 4-way stop at Orangewood and Mountain View and, in addition, curb
painting to provide visibility at intersections and to accommodate buses picking
up and delivering school children. That would be just the beginning; the neigh-
borhood should stay together, form an asmociation and solve the existing problems.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve a 4-way stop sign at Orangewood and
Moumtain View with appropriate curb painting to be accomplished up and down
Mountain View to prevent parking too close to intersections for better visibility,
as well as at bus stop areas. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth noted that relative to painting the
curbs, he recognized a tremendous hazard when coming from the side streets and
alleys onto Haster, and asked what distance would be allowable for painting of
the curbs.
Mr. Singer replied that the normal requirement for "day lighting" was between 80
and 120 feet or approximately 5 car lengths. They had received a letter from the
Anaheim School District requesting red zones to facilitate loading and unloading
of school buses. Work orders had already been initiated to have six red Zones
installed. He cautioned however the more installed, the more suhh zones would
affect the very acute shortage of parking in the area.
Mayor Seymour commented that was why his motion was just the beginning. If the
Council were to take more long-range action without sitting down with the neigh-
borhood and diligently looking into alternatives, they might cause more problems
than would be solved.
78-1359
City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10p 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott asked if the Mayor would amend his motion to ask the City Manager
to direct the Chief of Police to monitor the traffic and parking situation more
closely, especially at corners. He also agreed with the Mayor relative to the
formation of a neighborhood association and working with staff. He encouraged
those living in the area to use their garages which would alleviate some of the
parking problems.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that although she supported the motion, she wanted to
caution everyone relative to stop signs, crosswalks or traffic lights. People
tended to believe that they did not have to look anymore. That was not true and
there was no substitute for having good safety regulations instilled within the
persons themselves. As well, the sooner they could teach their children, the
better. The question of who had the right-of-way had been raised, but she empha-
sized when dealing with a vehicle no matter who had the right-of-way, the pedes-
trian would always lose. Everyone had to be responsible for their own safety.
Councilman Overholt also expressed his support, but further suggested that the
Chief of Police be advised of complaints regarding Ponderosa Park. It was a
beautiful asset to the City and it would be sad, considering the alleged incidents
reported, for it to become a deficit. He also suggested that the neighborhood
continue to work closely with the Community Advisory Council at Paul Revere School
because they had extensive experience in knowing how to get things done. He shared
the Mayor's thoughts relative to a community that could be great if the people
formed together to solve problems that developed, and likewise it could deteriorate
if no one paid attention to problems as they arose.
Councilman Seymour then clarified his motion as follows with the amendments proposed
by Councilmen Kott and Overholt: Approval of a 4-way stop sign at Orangewood and
Mountain View; appropriate curb painting to be accomplished up and down Mountain
View to prevent parking too close to intersections for better visibility, as well
as at bus stop areas; City Manager to direct the Chief of Police to closely monitor
area relative to speeders and advise him of complaints concerning problems in
Ponderosa Park.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
Adjourned: 8:10 P.M.