1978/10/3178-1454
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 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 (entered
at 7:30 P.M.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
POLICE LIEUTENANT: Randal Gaston
ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE: Jim Armstrong
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Pam Lucado
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood called the meeting to order and welcomed
those in attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Chaplain Ted Cleveland of Anaheim Memorial Hospital gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Pro Tem
Kaywood and approved by the City Council:
"Teen Challenge Week in Anaheim" - November 12-18, 1978.
The proclamation was accepted by Carolyn Winderbaum.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
minutes of the regular meeting held June 20, 1978, were approved, sUbject to
typographical corrections. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,387,323.25, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING: (intersection of
Anaheim Hills Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road - Account No. 01-794-6325-4100)
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-700 for adoption, awarding a con-
tract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer
in his memorandum dated October 23,1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1455
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-700: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 01-794-6325-4100. (Steiny and Company, $63,557)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-700 duly passed and adopted.
174: AWARD OF CONTRACT - COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PATT STREET ALLEY
IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 25-793-6325-3130) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, award of contract on the subject improvement was
continued to November 7, 1978, as recommended in memorandum dated October 24,
1978, from the City Engineer. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - VERMONT-LEMON INTERCEPTOR SEWER: (Account No.
46-790-6325-0070) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
award of contract on the subject improvement was continued to November 14, 1978,
as recommended in memorandum dated October 25, 1978, from the City Engineer.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
149: AWARD OF CONTRACT - PHILADELPHIA STREET PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT: (Account
No. 46-792-6325-2170) Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-701 for
adoption awarding a contract to the iow bidder in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated October 26, 1978. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-701: 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: PHILADELPHIA STREET PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT NO.
46-792-6325-2170, AND PHILADELPHIA STREET AND CLAUDINA STREET IMPROVEMENT,
ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2220, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Ruiz Engineering Company
S61,119.95) · '
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-701 duly passed and adopted.
78-1456
.~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
123/161: AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-702 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated October 18, 1978, from Executive Director Norm Priest
authorizing the first amendment to Cooperation Agreement No. 4 with the
Agency for construction and installation of certain public improvements within
Project Alpha under Project No. 6. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-702: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION
AGREEMENT NIIMBER 4 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS,
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, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-702 duly passed and adopted.
123/161: COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 8 WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Councilman
Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-703 for adoption, as recommended in memo-
randum dated October 25, 1978, from the Executive Director, determining that
the installation of street lighting at Rose and Vine Streets to be of benefit
to Redevelopment Project Alpha and authorizing Cooperation Ageement No. 8 with
the Agency therefor. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-703: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DETERMINING CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OF BENEFIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ALPHA PROJECT AREA; CONSENTING TO THE PAYMENT BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT ~GENCY
TO THE CITY OF THE COSTS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; AND APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT THEREFOR BETWEEN THE CITY
AND THE AGENCY. (Cooperation Agreement No. 8)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-703 duly passed and adopted.
140: PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMS OF THE CALIFORNIA LIBRARY SERVICES ACT: Council-
man Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-704 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated October 20, 1978, from BettJaVandiver, Librarian, enabling the City of Anaheim
Library to participate in programs under the California Library Services Act. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-704: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC LIBRARY TO PARTICIPATE IN CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
SERVICES ACT.
78-1457
City Ha.il, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
S eymo ur
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-704 duly passed and adopted.
123: RECREATION PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977-78:
Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Anaheim Union High School, Anaheim
City School and Magnolia Elementary School Districts relating to a joint program
for community recreation to permit Districts' payment for the 1977-78 fiscal year.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-705 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated October 23, 1978, from James Ruth, Parks, Recreation and the
Arts Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-705: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-705 duly passed and adopted.
106: ADJUSTMENTS TO 1978-79 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: City Manager William Talley
explained that the first motion would authorize certain adjustments to the 1978-79
Resource Allocation Plan and the second would approve a list of reserve appropria-
tions from the prior fiscal year, 1977-78. Speaking to the latter, he waited until
all of the budget adjustments were in, and he was merely submitting the reserve
appropriations at this time. On individual projects, services or equipment budgeted
in 1977-78 not received, nor paid in the last year, the recommendation was to carry
forward those items totalling $469,725. Thus, there was no effect on the budget
other than raising the budget revenues and expenditures in that amount for items
ordered or incumbered by the prior year. The major motion involved the adjustments
to the Resource Allocation Plan.
Mr. Talley continued that when the Budget hearings were concluded this year, Council
directed staff to review the current budget in light of the Proposition 13 factors.
At that time, an amount originally estimated to be over $1.5 million was transferred
from the General Benefits Fund which amount turned out to be $1,908,808. The intent
of the Council's action was that during the year, the Council would again consider
the matter after all information on the affect of property tax revenues, County
budget developments and what was known about the availability of State funds were
known. At the most recent Council/Management Staff seminar on October 4, 1978,
the majority of the day was spent going over each one of those and for purposes
of the public, he then recounted those items, along with changes staff made in
78-1458
City Hail, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
accordance with what they believed to be the Council desires at the time. Mr.
Talley then briefed the Council on his memorandum dated October 24, 1978,
"Adjustments to 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan," specifically Items 1 through
7, page 1 and 2 of his report.
In concluding, Mr. Talley stated that the report also took into account all
direction staff received at the October 4, 1978 meeting and incorporated what
the Department Head Committee recommended to the Council at that meeting after
studying the matter for several months. It also reflected all of the information
currently available on what revenues were available in the City. The balance
remaining would be $154,128 out of an approximate $45 million general budget or
something less than one-third of a percent, thus providing an almost balanced
budget although it did show a theoretical $154,000 of revenues coming in excess
of anticipated expenditures.
For purposes of clarification, Councilman Kott then questioned staff relative to
what was entailed in Account No. 115, the details of the car elimination and pro-
visions made to conform to the CETA program in terms of length of stay of those
employed.
Councilman Kott stated for purposes of the public and the press that the reduction
to the budget did not reflect any of his wishes, but did reflect huge reductions
in all areas, except in the administrative portions including the City Manager's
Office and the Personnel Department. The same was true of car elimination which
affected the people on the streets and not Department Heads who might never use
a car other than going to and from work. He did not see anything that indicated
cuts were going to be made from the top, but only from the bottom, and thus he
did not agree with the adjustments.
Mr. Talley took issue with Councilman Kott's assessment, especially relative to
the absence of reductions in the administrative portions. Unless the statement
was considered in light of the historical perspective, he considered it grossly
unfair. Over the last 3 years, a significant number of people were pared out
of the administrative process making it difficult to have the ability to do so
again for the current year. Mr. Talley then explained what had been done in
reducing each element of those sections in the City Manager's Office substantially
below what they used to be.
Discussion followed relative to Councilman Kott's non-attendance at the Budget
workshop, wherein Councilman Kott stated that he did go to the first workshop and
thereafter, Councilwoman Kaywood and others criticized what he said at that
session.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated, for the record, that at the work session of October 4,
1978, four Council Members were in attendance with Councilman Kott being absent.
She further stated that the October 4, 1978 meeting was necessary becausa of
Councilman Kott's attendance at the meeting a week before, wherein he discussed
matters that had nothing to do with the meeting and thus wasted everyone's time.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated that at the workshop, the Council Members present
did express their individual philosophies on a number of the areas of potential re-
duction, and there was not total agreement. He gave examples where the Mayor did
78-1459
.Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
not agree and wished that he were present at this portion of today's meeting to
express those views. Councilman Overholt then commended the entire staff for the
outstanding job they had done in coming up with the proposed reductions and rising
to the challenge dictated by the citizens in the passage of Proposition 13. He
thereupon moved that the adjustments to the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan be
approved. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION: Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that in view of the
fact that the matter under consideration was an important one and with the
Mayor being absent, a substitute motion would be in order to continue the item
until the evening meeting when the Mayor would be present to give his input.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion after City Attorney Hopkins confirmed
for him that it would be proper to postpone the matter until the evening meeting
if the Council so desired and the motion was approved by majority vote.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
It was also clarified that the second motion relative to reserve appropriations
was to be continued to the evening meeting.
153/180: DISABILITY RETIREMENT PROCEDURES FOR FIRE AND POLICE SAFETY EMPLOYEES:
Councilman Kott questioned the statement in the last paragraph in the memorandum
dated October 25, 1978 on the subject from the City Manager and Risk Manager
specifically, "Ail cities are experiencing the phenomenon of increasing applica-
tions because of multiple factors. To limit this as much as possible we have
taken steps to reduce the number of disability retirements through assertive
efforts to return employees to permanent limited duty, where warranted." He
asked for an example.
City Manager Talley stated that approximately 6 months prior, they began expanding
the areas where they believed an employee could be returned to a line of limited
duty. On a number of occasions, they had not retired employees where possibly
they may have done so in prior years. Because of the increasing numbers of disa-
bility cases, they were expending more effort in trying to find more duty stations
where those employees could be used.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked the Council if they wished the issue to be
held over to the evening meeting for full Council action. Councilman Kott main-
tained that since the subject was also an important issue, he favored the contin-
uation and moved that it be held over to the evening meeting when Mayor Seymour
would be present. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt expressed his concern that department personnel were being
asked to attend a 7:30 p.m. meeting scheduled to consider two public hearings,
and thus staff would have to wait around until the hearings were concluded. He
recommended therefore that the items continued to the evening for full Council
action be set for 9:00 p.m., at which time the budget matter would first be
discussed.
78-1460
Ci.ty Hali~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application by Astro Pyrotechnics, on
behalf of Volunteer Quality Foods, Inc., to discharge fireworks on November 1,
1978, between 8:00 and 11:00 p.m., at Anaheim Stadium, in conjunction with a
Wendy's Hamburger activity at adjacent Malibu Grand Prix was submitted.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood noted that the request covered the hours 8:00 to 11:00 p.m.,
and she considered 11:00 p.m. too late to be discharging fireworks, considering
the noise factor. She asked if anyone was present to speak to that aspect, either
the applicant or staff; no one was present.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, Application for the
subject Public Fireworks Display Permit was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood
voted "No". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: EQUESTRIAN CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT: A 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, (continued from the meetings of August 29 and October 10,
1978) was submitted.
Councilman Overholt offered a resolution authorizing the subject lease agreement.
Before action was taken, Councilman Roth stated that in discussing the matter, it
appeared that the Golf Course Commission was supposed to advise the Council what
property was going to be available for sale of the 35 acres, and thus he was not
certain that the Council should presently be acting on the matter. The Council
was going to try to find ways of alleviating the debt of the golf course with
the possibility of selling the 35 acres. He realized because there was a blanket
encumberance on the golf course that the City could not sell the land. Rather
than engaging in a long-term lease with Anaheim Hills, Inc., he preferred to
hold off until word was received from the Golf Course Commission.
Mr. James Ruth, Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, stated that his Department
was not in a hurry to take action on the property. However, Anaheim Hills was
interested in consummating some type of lease agreement so that they could continue
their plans to expand, the Equestrian Center since demands on the use of the center
exceeded their existing capabilities. Thus, they were desirous of expediting
the matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Dan Salcedo, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, stated that Mr. Ruth
was correct. The Equestrian Center was a very busy one and it was necessary to
provide additional parking as well as a work ring and walk ring. They made a
commitment to that particular phase and wanted to continue it in perpetuity if
possible, but more importantly, they wanted to let the residents of the community
know that the Center would be there for at least an additional five years.
Councilman Kott, having reviewed Mr. Cedric White's letter of September 25, 1978
relative to the appraisal of the Equestrian Center property (on file in the City
Clerk's Office), remarked as follows: he was not aware that the land was being
subleased by a Mr. Larry Lease and since Anaheim Hills was subletting the land,
he questioned why the City was leasing it to them and what revenues Anaheim Hills
was obtaining as sublessors. The letter also noted if the land was available
for single-family residential use, it would have a current value of $25,000 per
acre yet, Mr. White's appraisal reflected $13,000 an acre. He was of the opinion
78-1461
~ity Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
that it should be appraised for more than that amount considering the fact that
the City paid $9,700 per acre at least l0 years before. He wanted to see one
of two things--either Anaheim Hills lease the land or Mr. Lease lease the land
at a more equitable figure that would be more in favor of the taxpayer or the
land sold to Anaheim Hills, since he understood they would be willing to purchase
it. The letter further indicated that the appraisal report was being prepared
and would provide additional details. Thus, he did not believe that there was
adequate information on which to make a decision at the present time. He thought
the Council was going to be provided with documentation that would give the whole
picture. He wanted to know what the land was worth in terms of selling it and
putting structures on it, or he wanted to know impartially what the land was
really worth. The lease would do nothing but encumber the property for another
5 years. He therefore suggested that staff or the Council authorize organizations
such as VTN or Willdan, who could make determinations such as to its best use,
cost of development, value of the land, etc., to come up with more equitable
information which would give the Council a base for making a decision.
Councilman Kott continued that relative to the present arrangement wherein if
one parcel was sold, the whole acreage would have to be paid for, he wanted the
Council to go on record requesting the owner of the note, whom he understood was
Mrs. Bonnie Grant, if she would be willing to settle for less and staff could
work out the details of such a plan.
In concluding, Councilman Kott noted that according to Mr. White's letter, he
spoke to people from Anaheim Hills and Larry Lease, and thus he (Kott) viewed
it as a one-sided matter. He wished that Mr. White had spoken to him, especially
since the City paid for the appraisa~ instead of going to someone else to obtain
information.
MOTION: Councilman Roth stated that he would have no objection to having the
City Attorney request the holder of the note on the property to rewrite it with
release clauses. He thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to contact the
holder of the note on the subject property asking for a rewrite with a release
clause so that the City would be able to sell the parcel or portions thereof.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt noted that the primary matter before
the Council was the resolution he offered at the outset. He also believed that
the Council was going far beyond the issue at hand. Before he could vote on the
proposed motion, he asked when the appraisal report was going to be available.
Mr. Cedric White, real estate appraiser, 2651 Woodland Drive, stated that' the
appraisal report was completed and dated October 10, 1978. It was unfortunate
that Councilman Kott did not have an opportunity to review it because some of
his questions were answered in the report.
Councilman Overholt thereupon stated that he would support Councilman Roth's
motion, but in deference to Anaheim Hills, it was important to know when the
report would be available, which apparently it was, and perhaps postpone action
on the resolution to some further date.
78-1462
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. White then stated that the appraisal report had
been sent to the Real Property Division, but he would be happy to give him his file
copy, although he would not have an opportunity to review it immediately. He also
commented on a statement made by Councilman Kott relative to his not having con-
tacted him in preparing the appraisal. If Councilman Kott wanted to be interviewed
by him prior to his completing an appraisal, he would be happy to do so. However,
since the City had hired him to do a number of appraisals, Councilman Kott would
be kept quite busy because there were many properties that would have to be dis-
cussed. Also, the inference was that he may have been biased because he talked
to the other side. He noted that Anaheim Hills was also paying one-half the fee.
Mr. White emphasized that he did go to the City, but would not take any Council
Member's time, not because they could not help, but merely as a matter of respect
for their busy schedules. He wanted to be certain there was no concern on Council-
man Kott's part that he was unfair. He did agree with Councilman Kott's point
relative to the fact that the appraisal price was "cheap", but there was a reason
having to do with legal constraints. The law stated the highest price the property
would bring exposed on the market to an informed buyer. Anybody buying the land
would be aware that it was more than appropriate for residential purposes, but
the zoning which the City placed on it defined it as recreational land. He could
not in his scope of appraising make the decision to rezone it. He had to consider
what an informed buyer would find out and if he investigated that land, he would
find out that it was designated for recreational use. The reason he went into
the residential values was in anticipation of Council concerns. If the land was
studied as to what it was reasonably available for, the conclusions he arrived at
were the top dollar for recreational use.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked Mr. Ruth if the parcel in question contained the only
flat land in the Canyon area with which the Recreation Department was concerned.
Mr. Ruth stated it was not the only one, but one of the primary considerations.
There was a tremendous deficiency in the hill and canyon area in terms of park
and recreation needs. In looking at the future, if they could salvage the land,
they could either use that area for park development or trade with Anaheim Hills
for an equivalent value of flat land for the development of park space in the area.
They were looking at a maximum of 10 acres.
Mr. Lynn Buffington, 7055 Columbus Drive, stated that HACMAC had been involved
with reviewing the various proposals on the golf course and unless something had
changed since the last time they met with the Golf Course Commission on the matter
at the October 24, 1978 meeting, the Commission was not even considering the piece
of property in question. The 35 acres referred to in their report was land at the
other end of the course. At that meeting, he did raise the question and it was
his understanding from the Commission the reason they were not considering it, was
that it was under the control of the Park, Recreation and Arts Department, and
they were specifically instructed not to consider that property.
Councilman Kott stated his understanding of the final action taken at the meeting
was directing the Golf Course Commission to come back and pinpoint the pieces of
property surrounding the golf course and submit those to the Council. Mr. Buffington
stated that although that was the directive, in examining the documentation, that
piece of property was not under consideration.
78-1463
City Hall~ Anaheim~_.California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Buffington concluded that it seemed to HACMAC that there was a willingness
on the part of Anaheim Hills to buy the property and it was going to take some-
one from the City to meet with them and hammer out a business deal. It was also
in the extreme realm of possibility that a reduction in the golf course note could
be negotiated. That approach therefore seemed to be a logical one, and he urged
the Council to try to see if they could work toward accomplishing such a possibility.
Mr. Joseph White, 809 West Broadway, recalled that approximately 5 years prior,
a meeting was held at the country club and the subject parcel was discussed relative
to the possibility of its being sold to help defray the payments on the golf course.
At the meeting on October 24, 1978, it was shown that the property was above the
flood level, was relatively level, and could be very useable. He believed it
to be a valuable piece of property and if sold, should be sold for its highest and
best use to a buyer who would pay the most for it in order for the City to get
out from under its debt. It should not be confined to, appraised, and sold as a
horse ranch because that was not the purpose for which it was originally purchased.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would withdraw his resolution until a vote was
taken on Councilman Roth's motion.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to continue consideration of authorizing a
lease agreement with Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., to expand the Equestrian Center
from 5 acres to 10 acres at an annual fee of $12,000 for three weeks. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked Mr. Salcedo if Anaheim Hills
was interested in purchasing the property as an Equestrian Center; Mr. Salcedo
answered yes.
Councilman Overholt then explained for Mr. Salcedo the first and foremost reason
for the requested continuance was to give each Council Member an opportunity to
review Mr. White's detailed appraisal.
In order to further clarify their position, Mr. Salcedo stated that Anaheim Hills,
in purchasing the property for equestrian purposes, would indicate in not only
the deed, but also the parcel map that it would be used for equestrian purposes
only. They were a planned community and there was a need for a certain balance
in terms of recreation open space and that was the commitment they had to the
residents and neighbors.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing for a continuance. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
156: PRIVATE PROPERTY IMPOUND: A report directing the City Attorney to prepare
an ordinance providing that every towing company performing private property im-
pounds within the City be required to obtain a permit issued by the Police Depart-
ment was submitted.
Councilman Kott referred to memorandum dated October 24, 1978, regarding the sub-
ject and asked if Police Department input was received relative to the recommenda-
tion.
78-1464
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jim Armstrong, Administrative Aide, stated that as directed, he worked the
procedure out with the Police Department, Stadium-Convention Center staff and
the City Attorney's Office.
Lieutenant Gaston, Traffic Bureau, clarified that the Police Department was in
accord with the proposed ordinance as outlined.
Mrs. James Perkins, Sr., Loara Street, relayed an incident which had occurred
wherein her son's car was towed from a lot just outside of the Stadium parking
lot and when he went to reclaim the car, the towing company would not even
allow them to take anything out of the vehicle. She wanted to know if legal
suits had been filed in the past against towing companies.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that no legal action had been taken on behalf of
the City, but some of the persons whose cars were towed away may have brought
legal action since the Vehicle Code provided that any damages done in removal
may be redressed by action in court.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney
was directed to prepare an ordinance providing that every towing company performing
private property impounds within the City be required to obtain a permit issued
by the Police Department.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins stated that in connection with the
motion, he would recommend that the permit be issued by the City Council and
administered by the Police Department and that it be revocable by the City Council.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: BUS SHELTER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: Authorizing the City Council to conclude
the bus shelter demonstration by terminating the license agreements with Bustop
Shelters of California, Inc., and Sheltertop Inc., and authorizing staff to so
notify said companies.
Councilman Overholt referred to a memorandum dated October 25, 1978, from the
Planning Department, Planning Division, regarding the subject and questioned
why the license agreements had to be terminated, and if so, would those companies
have to immediately remove their pilot shelters.
Pam Lucado, Assistant Planner, explained that the reason staff was recommending
termination was to clarify their paperwork with respect to the license agreements.
If the Council wished to continue the demonstration with the two demonstration
shelters remaining in place, they recommended that Council direct staff to extend
the term of said license agreements for both bus shelter companies and have them
sign amendments to those license agreements.
Councilman Overholt stated that he, for one, felt it would be unfortunate to have
the shelters removed by direction of the Council at the present time until they
made a final decision on the program. One of the shelters might become part of
a permanent plan if staff adopted the design of either one or both. He suggested
that the Council do whatever had to be done to allow the two companies to continue
78-1465
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
to maintain those shelters at the two locations until the Council finally con-
cluded bus shelter deliberations. He believed that many people misinterpreted
what was a majority vote when they took action on bus shelters in that it was
an attempt to "scuttle" the program. He, for one, had no intention of doing that.
Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that Bustop and Sheltertop not be directed to
remove their demonstration shelters and that staff be directed to do whatever
necessary to allow them to continue. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins explained the term of the agreement
that was signed between the City of Anaheim and Bustop and Sheltertop was for
a limited period, "to commence on the date of execution of the agreement (which
was in March) and expiring at midnight 180 consecutive calendar days following
completion of installation of said shelter. Said shelter shall be completed
within a reasonable period of time." It also provided for the removal of the
shelter within 30 days following the expiration of the agreement or an extension.
There was a question as to whether Council had given an extension. If the Council
desired to extend the period, he recommended that an amendment be made to both
license agreements to cover the additional time.
Councilman Roth stated he was first going to vote "no" on the motion and let it
go at that. However, he recommended that a 6-month extension be given, but con-
tended that in 6 months the Council would again review the matter and nothing would
be done and the City's senior citizens would be standing in the rain.
Councilman Overholt was agreeable to the 6-month extension, but took issue with
Councilman Roth's frustration relative to the program with respect to a lack of
action. He was confident that before 6 months were over, the bus shelter program
would be underway on a very positive basis.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows: That Bustop
Shelters of California, Inc., and Sheltertop, Inc., not be directed to remove
their demonstration shelters and that both agreements with those companies be
extended 6 months from today's date with the City Attorney to prepare amendments
to both agreements. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
156: POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT FORM PROCEDURE: City Manager Talley explained
that the major change to the rough draft of the form that was provided for Council
inspection would be information added to it as to how to mail the form back and
the directions were also being printed bilingually. If anyone wished to pick up
a complaint form at the Police Station without talking to anyone, it was now
possible to do ~o. Likewise, if someone wished to have a form mailed to them,
they could also make that request. Relative to other distribution points, the
forms were available in the City Clerk's Office, and in a staff meeting Other
appropriate locations were discussed, and it was determined that the Libraries
and the Community Services Office would be suitable, thus giving adequate
geographical distribution.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the report relative
to the Revised Police Department Procedures requested at the meeting of October 17,
1978, was ordered received and filed. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
78-1466
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilmen Kott and Seymour. (3:25 P.M.)
129: FIREWORKS PERMIT: Application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted
by Astro Pyrotechnics on behalf of Stadium Motor Sports to discharge fireworks on
November 11, 1978, between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. at Anaheim Stadium, was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject Applica-
tion for a Public Fireworks Display Permit, was approved.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that he believed Councilwoman
Kaywood had a point relative to specifying a time for display of fireworks
and suggested that the form could be changed to indicate the specific times of
display rather than merely indicating the time during which the whole program
would be taking place.
Councilman Overholt suggested adopting a policy whereby fireworks must be dis-
charged before 10:00 p.m., which would coincide with the request of the City of
Orange in connection with the Stadium that noisy activity after 10:00 p.m. be
discouraged.
City Attorney Hopkins stated there was no reason why a maximum time limit could
not be specified.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood explained the many complaints she had received in the past,
especially relative to the fireworks that were discharged after each touchdown
made at the Stadium when the California Sun Football team was housed there. She
sympathized and emphathized with those who complained as the noise was a very
unsettling factor for dogs, as well as young children trying to sleep.
Councilman Overholt asked if a restriction could be added to the permit at this
point.
City Attorney Hopkins stated as indicated, it would be imposing a new rule without
notice, but it would be advisable on future applications to state that fireworks
displays after 10:00 p.m. would not be approved.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the applicants in this instance also be
encouraged not to have their display after 10:00 p.m.
Councilman Kott returned to the Council Chamber. (3:30 P.M.)
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
an ordinance stipulating 10:00 p.m. as a deadline for discharging fireworks unless
special permission was granted by the City Council. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1467
City. ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
129: FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilman Overholt, Application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted
by Pyro Spectaculars on behalf of Western High School to discharge fireworks on
November 3, 1978, at 8:00 p.m. at Western High School Handel Stadium, was approved,
with the applicant encouraged not to discharge fireworks after 10:00 P.M. Council-
woman Kaywood voted "No". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator, and the Appli-
cation to Present Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Pamele Higgins for damages purportedly sustained as a result
of a power shutoff on or about September 24, 25, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Nickolas A. Siokos for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of an automobile hitting a 2-foot deep cut in the road at
Orangethorpe and Kellogg on or about September 12, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Jennings W. Grabe and Miriam Grabe for personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of the malfunction of a traffic signal at
Orangewood and Harbor on or about September 17, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Manuel Rubio, Jr. for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about July 24, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Mary E. Hartsook for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of a power turnoff in error on or about October 13, 1978.
f. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Brandon A. Lissner,
a minor, for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by
Anaheim Police on or about April 27, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of October 10, 1978.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of September 21, October 2 and 5, 1978.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of October 18, 1978.
d. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of September 28, 1978.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
114: CITY OF BUENA PARK RESOLUTION NO. 6401 AND CITY OF YORBA LINDA RESOLUTION
NO. 1192: (Resolution No. 6401 opposing the State of California's lack of
concern for the impact of State mandated costs and Resolution No. 1192 re-
questing the State Legislature to strengthen regulations relating to state-
licensed contractors.) Councilwoman Kaywood stated that relative to Buena
Park's resolution, she understood there was now a new addition to SB 90 which
78-1468
~i. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
permitted the City or County to sue the State if they did not agree a particular
item was something that should be mandated. Yorba Linda's resolution related to
swimming pool and home improvement contractors who failed to completely and ade-
quately fulfill their contractual obligations to customers.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the City of Anaheim support Resolution
No. 6401 and Resolution No. 1192 and draw up similar resolutions. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: CouncilwomanKaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-706
through 78R-708, 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.
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-706: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC
SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH BICYCLE LANES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF SANTA ANA CANYON
ROAD, EAST CITY LIMITS TO WEST CITY LIMITS, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-728-16-0875 (77-78)
AND ACCOUNT NO. 16-798-6325-8010 (78-79). (Unistrut of Los Angeles)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-707: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET
AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-3A, east side of Tustin Avenue,
north of the Riverside Freeway, public hearing set for November 21, 1958, 3:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-708: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1683
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-121 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 78R-706 through 78R-708, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City planning
Commission at their meeting held October 9, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted'for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-16 AND VARIANCE NO. 3053: Submitted by Taormina
Industries, Inc., and Cosmo V. and Arlene Taormina, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 24-unit apartment complex on property
located at 526 and 528~ Vermont Avenue with certain code waivers.
78-1469
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-232 and PC78-233,
granted Reclassification No. 78-79-16 and Variance No. 3053, in part, respective-
ly, and granted negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3052: Submitted by Reed D. and Florence M. Conkle, to construct
a family room addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 402 South Florette
Street, with a waiver of minimum structural setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-234, granted
Variance No. 3052 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1893: Submitted by Pradip G. and Tarulata P. Naik,
Manubhai N. Naik, Dolatrai R. Naik, to permit the showing of adult movies in an
existing motel on CG zoned property located at 300 North Manchester Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-235, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 1893 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1894: Submitted by Dennis W., Dave R. and Sandra
Aase, to permit an automobile dismantling and parts sales facility on ML zoned
property located at 701 East Cypress Street with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-236, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1894, in part, and granted negative declaration
status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1895: Submitted by Properties Limited, to permit
an automobile body repair and restoration facility on ML zoned property located
at 2980 East Miraloma Avenue, with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-237, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1895 and granted negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1896: Submitted by Alan and Lila E. Segal,
Robert L. and Gloria L. Austin, to permit a pawnshop on CL zoned property
located at 2222 West Orange Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-238, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1896 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 3044 (READVERTISED): Submitted
by Young F. and Lucinda J. Hammatt, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RS-7200, to construct a 7-lot subdivision on property located at 1548 West Orange-
wood Avenue, with certain code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-230 and PC78-231,
granted Reclassification No. 78-79-20 and Variance No. 3044 (readvertised) and
granted negative declaration status.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
78-1470
C.i.ty ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilman Kott.
Following discussion and questions posed to staff, no further action was taken
by the Council:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1742 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by James T.
Abe, for a one-year extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1742 to
permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces on CL zoned property located at the southeast corner of Orange Avenue
and Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission approved a one-year extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1742.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1342 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Paul Bandy,
for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1342 to establish a child
nursery on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at the south side of South Street,
west of State College Boulevard, with a waiver of minimum front yard depth and
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission denied an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1342.
3. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10032 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Taylor Grant,
Grant Warmington Builders, for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10032,
a 39-1ot, 36-unit subdivision on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located south of Nohl
Ranch Road and Hillcrest Drive, southwesterly of Anaheim Hills Road.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 10032 to expire June 5, 1980.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR FAMILY GROUP HOMES: Senate Bill 2098, which amends
Sections 5115 and 5116 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and adds new Section
1566.3 to the Health and Safety Code to expressly forbid any city from requiring
a conditional use permit, zoning variance or other zoning clearance for any group
home which serves six or fewer persons.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that SB 2098 did restrict the City's self-rule.
However, until the court declared it unconstitutional, the City was obligated
to follow it and it could present some problems in those areas where similar
situations have occurred with one court case on appeal at the present time.
Councilman Kott asked if a motion would be in order to present the matter to
the League of California Cities for their input.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would be glad to investigate the matter
with the League and report back.
WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 538: Request by Young F. and Lucinda J. Hammatt,
for a waiver of Council Policy No. 538, in conjunction with Reclassification
No. 78-79-20 and Variance No. 3044, pertaining to Lot Nos. 4 and 7 which are
adjacent to Orangewood Avenue.
78-1471
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request for
waiver of Council Policy No. 538, in conjunction with the subject Reclassification
and Variance was approved, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1398 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: On motion by Council-
man Overhott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of John F. Stein, Jr.,
for approval of revised plans to establish an office complex in an existing
residential structure on property located at 705 and 711 South State College
Boulevard, was approved, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL: Request by Bill Asawa, Ric Development, for removal of
11 specimen trees to construct a shopping center on CL(SC) zoned property located
at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard.
Councilman Kott stated that the item should be set for a public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a request had been received from HACMAC re-
questing that the matter be set for a public hearing since there was a concern
that there may have been two separate maps or photos shown to two different
groups.
The City Clerk was directed to set the matter for a public hearing.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3931 AND 3932: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinacne Nos. 3931
and 3932 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 3931: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SEC-
TION 18.01.190 OF CHAPTER 18.01 AND SUBSECTION 18.06.060.0233 OF CHAPTER 18.06,
AND ADDING NEW SECTION 18.06.090 TO CHAPTER 18.06, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (parking standards for fast food restaurants)
142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 3932: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.28 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTIONS
7.28.030 AND 7.28.040 RELATING TO HOTEL-LOITERING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kott, Roth and Kaywood
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance Nos. 3931 and 3932 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3933 THROUGH 3935: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3933
through 3935, both inclusive, for first reading.
170: ORDINANCE NO. 3933: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SECTION 17.06.140 OF CHAPTER 17.06, TITLE 17, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO GRADING. (to allow the construction of downdrains constructed
of natural grey concrete with natural riverbed rock surface)
78-1472
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3934: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-54, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3935: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-2, CL)
lli: HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL AND PARADE: Councilman Overholt stated that relative
to the Halloween Festival and Parade just completed, the Halloween Committee,
under the leadership of Herb Leo and the Anaheim City School District, service
clubs who participated, citizens, City officials and School officials were to
be complimented on doing an outstanding Job in bringing forth an excellent event.
He personally felt it was a tribute to the City and the citizens and the Festival
was off to a new rebirth. In the 9 years he sat on the Anaheim City School District
Board of Trustees, he could not remember a time when any of the City Council was
present at the Kiddie Parade which he considered to be the real nucleus of the
entire event. This year, 4 Council Members, as well as Councilman Kott's wife
who was representing him, were in attendance and the children were delighted that
they had that support.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated that the Halloween Festival, the children's parade,
the costume ball and the new parade route reflected the very fine community spirit
involved.
Councilman Roth agreed that the Halloween Festival and Parade was one of the
finest and asked that a letter of commendation be sent to the Halloween Festival
Committee, to be signed by all Council Members, thanking them for a job well done.
PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE FOR 90 DAYS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, permission was granted for Councilman Roth to
leave the State for 90 days. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Ro th moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. Councilman Kott seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:55 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton E. Piersail
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR: Bill Lewis
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:30 P.M.)
78-1473
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-4 (READVERTISED) - REHEARING: Sub-
mitted by Harold Henry, for a change in zone from PD-C, RS-A-43,000 and CL to
RM-1200, to construct a 143-unit apartment complex on property located north of
Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-188, granted a nega-
tive declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR to subject project and
further granted Reclassification No. 78-79-4, subject to conditions~
Variance No. 3024 was terminated by the City Planning Commission at the request
of the petitioner.
Review of City Planning Commission action was requested by Councilman Kott and
public hearing held on September 19, 1978, at which time the City Council, pursu-
ant to Resolution No. 78R-611, denied Reclassification No. 78-79-4 without prejudice.
Agent for the applicant, Rondell Homes, requested a rehearing before the City
Council; said rehearing was scheduled this date.
The City Clerk submitted 4 letters in support of the project which had been pre-
viously copied for the City Council.
Mayor Seymour asked if the applicant or his agent wished to address the Council.
Mr. Phillip Case, representing Rondell Homes, 9774 West Katella Avenue, used a
graphic display to review the development proposal as presented on September 19,
1978, to construct 170 apartment units. He explained that as a result of concerns
expressed by the neighbors, his firm redesigned the project, thereby moving the
driveways and parking to the interior and placed the parking below grade. This
would allow a situation wherein there will be no vehicles driven or parked within
150 feet of the surrounding homes. He stressed that these apartment units would
be farther away from the existing single-family homes than would an RS-7200 zoned
development, which could also be built 2 stories high. He displayed elevations
indicating the appearance of the project from Lincoln Avenue, no ting that it would
be set back 80 feet from the street.
Mr. Case noted that it should be taken into consideration that the property in
question is very expensive. He advised that his firm reviewed all of the poten-
tial uses for the property including commercial and condominiums. However, their
main business is apartments. They currently own and operate 600 apartment rental
units in the City of Anaheim. They gave up on their original request for CL zoning
on a portion of this property at the request of the Planning Commission because of
concerns that the traffic problems which would be caused by a commercial usage at
this location would be more than the staff, Planning Commission and Traffic Engineer
could handle. Consequently, they redesigned the project excluding the commercial
portion and using all the property for apartment units. He submitted a cost
analysis of development to condominium standards at 10 units to the acre which
would come to approximately $80,000 to $85,000 per unit and noted that every month
they are delayed, makes the project that much more expensive. Furthermore, he pointed~
out that he did not believe condominium units to be the highest and best use for
the property. That there would be no centralized management to keep order on the
78-1474
!~__ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
grounds or within the project with condominiums; that the proposed project would
provide a good transition from commercial along Lincoln Avenue to residential;
and there are no requested waivers from Code requirements. In response to concern
over density, they are projecting 170 units, one-half of which would be 1-bedroom;
the remainder are 2-bedrooms. 2]ney calculate the density at 25.3 units to the
acre.
To demonstrate that his firm does retain ownership and does maintain their apart-
mentm and the grounds, a brief slide presentation was given showing a number of
Rondell Homes, Inc., properties to demonstrate the level of maintenance on these
projects, as well as their condition after many years in existence.
In addition, Mr. Case cited that there is an apparent need for apartments in
Anaheim, the apartment vacancy factor being less than one percent, and there are
currently no vacancies in the Rondell Homes apartment units. This situation
leaves the tenants open to the whims of the owner, and the only way to improve
these conditions is by allowing more apartment units to be built or some form of
rent control. Further, he advised that he personally thinks it is up to the private
sector to attempt to solve the problem. He summarized the amount of monies in City
fees, business license revenues and taxes the City would accrue as a result of the
proposed project.
In conclusion, Mr. Case summarized that as far as compatibility with the neighbor-
hood is concerned, his project will attempt to be a good neighbor by building a
6, 7 or 8-foot block wall if necessary; the closest building would be 20 feet away
from that wall; a 10-foot buffer area which will not be accessible, but will be
heavily planted with trees and landscaped, will be provided, and the remaining 10
feet to be used as patios only for the tenant in that particular unit. He voiced
the opinion that this should afford a great deal of privacy to the adjacent home-
owners and reiterated that if there is a problem, the neighbors will have someone
to go to with their complaints.
Mayor Seymour called for those in opposition who wished to speak.
Mrs. Judy Donley, 117 North Aladdin Drive, stated that everyone should be made
aware that this proposal, as presented this evening, shows no change from what
was previously submitted and denied by the Council at the meeting of September 19,
1978. She advised that this is the fourth time in 4 months that the neighbors
have appeared before either the Council or Planning Commission to protest the pro-
posed rezoning of this vacant lot. She recalled that the original plan was denied
by the Planning Commission on the basis of high density and because the apartments
were proposed to be located 5 to 13 feet from the property line without any buffer
zone. The developer therefore redesigned to the current plan which proposed 170
units or 29.5 units to the acre.
Mrs. Donley recalled that at the last public hearing, she presented alternatives
for development of this property; submitted approximately 333 signatures of persons
opposed. The property in question is surrounded by 3 R-1 single-family home tracts
which are 90 percent owner occupied. She voiced the opinion that an intrusion into
the neighborhood of adult apartments would be disastrous for the apartment dwellers,
as well as the homeowners. The approval of the proposal would force the homeowners
78-1475
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
into living in an apartment-like atmosphere since there are intended to be 3 to
4 apartment units backed up to each of the homes. Additionally, traffic in the
area would add to the traffic congestion problem of getting to and from the homes
because there is only one access street. She recalled that it is the City policy
that a 20-foot buffer zone be provided to protect the privacy and act as a visual
screen and noise barrier when other than residential, single-family is allowed
next to RS-7200 zoned property. In her opinion, this plan lacks such a buffer
zone. She was of the opinion that the 6-foot wall proposed would not even provide
a visual screen, since the homeowners could see over the wall from their kitchen
windows.
In conclusion, Mrs. Donley stated that although they agree the Rondell Homes, Inc.
properties are attractive and well maintained, she felt the firm had displayed a
total disregard for the homeowners who surround this particular project, both in
the original plan and in the revised 170-unit plan, since none of their requests,
nor any Council suggestions, have ever been considered or utilized. She reiterated
that alternatives acceptable to the neighbors would be a cul-de-sac street with
single-family homes in the RS-7200 or RS-5,000 zone; condominiums at a density of
6 or 7 units to the acre; and if buffered properly, they would accept a commercial
use on the Lincoln Avenue frontage portion with the condominiums to the rear; CL,
light industry or a single-story office building would be less desirable, but
acceptable alternatives, but any would be preferable to the RM-1200 which is
proposed.
Mrs. Donley also asked whether or not it would take a general plan amendment to
change the zoning designation on the property from low to low-medium or medium
before the actual rezoning could take place and Miss Santalahti explained that
the City's policy in cases of property which are 5 acres or less, the City Planning
staff will look at the surrounding area, and if this is developed with a more dense
zone than the one which is being requested, they make a determination as to whether
or not it would be worthwhile to process a general plan amendment for such a small
parcel.
Mrs. Karen Orton, 200 North Lindsay, agreed with the statements made by Mrs. Donley
in opposition, as well as with her recommended alternatives to the proposal. She re-
viewed a Police Department survey on the location of accidents during the month of
August, which statistics revealed that Lincoln Avenue between Knott and Euclid is
an area with frequent automobile accidents. She remarked that the rear yards of
the homes in her tract are 72 to 100 feet wide which would accommodate 3 to 4 of
the patios in the development proposal to each yard, which, in her opinion, is
too much. Although the apartments built by this firm are nice, she did not think
they belong in the middle of the neighborhood homes. She stated that there are no
changes to the plan as presented, and the developer has not conformed to requests of
Council and residents for a 20-foot buffer zone.
Mrs. Judy Smith, 2126 West Sunset, disagreed with Mr. Case's comment that if the
subject property were developed to condominiums they would most likely become rental
within a short period of time. She felt there are people who do like to live in
condominium projects and would remain there. Regarding the upkeep of the apartments,
she agreed that Mr. Case's firm has done a good job on maintenance, but there is no
78-1476
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
guarantee that the apartment units will not eventually be sold and there is no
way of knowing how the new owner would keep them. She commented that the home-
owners adjacent to Mr. Case's other project may be in higher density areas, whereas
her home is in a low density area, and she chose to live there mainly because she
did not want to live in an apartment atmosphere.
Mr. Franz Lazarus, 109 North Aladdin, stated that because his lot is shallow, his
home would be less than 20 feet from the apartment buildings as proposed.
Mr. Case reviewed the plot plan and explained that the portion of building which
would affect Mr. Lazarus' property is a side of the building which would have no
glass or windows.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor offered
the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Case stated that almost everyone who has looked at the subject property agrees
that it is a nice development for that site. He remarked that he has addressed,
in his presentation, the two major issues of concern regarding the project, these
being the setback and height of the perimeter wall; that they have tried to show
what would be most acceptable and has demonstrated that they intend to be a good
neighbor. He explained that the rationale behind the use of a part of the buffer
zone as patios is that if the property is visible from the tenant~ apartments, the
management will be more likely to keep it looking good.
Mr. Case recalled that when they first developed a plan for the property, it included
commercial on Lincoln Avenue, however following presentation of this to the Planning
Commission, that body did not approve of the commercial along Lincoln Avenue and
requested the development proposal be changed. As a result, his firm has worked for
several months with the Planning staff to come up with a suitable plan. He pointed
out that for any commercial portion along Lincoln Avenue to be economically viable
would require a left-hand turn capability with left-turn pockets from Lincoln Ave-
nue. This traffic situation would be hazardous, and the commercial use would gnerate
one-third more traffic than the apartment use proposed.
With respect to the concerns that 3 to 4 apartment units would back up to one yard,
Mr. Case noted that while a maximum of 4 units is possible, most yards would have
a ratio of 3 units possibly, and the average would be 2 and one-half units.
Mr. Case emphasized that these units would all be one-bedroom apartments to be
rented most probably by a couple or a single person. Therefore, he voiced the
opinion that the density of people would not be any greater than would be exper-
ienced with a condominium or RS-5,000 project, where families of.4 would be living
immediately adjacent to the tract homeowner's property line. He again recalled
his experience living in a condominium wherein most of the owners are young
families and they are motivated to leave when they can buy a home and if they
are unable to sell their condominium unit, they will rent it. In conclusion, he
referred to the letters of recommendation from homeowners living adjacent to his
other apartment units, attesting to the fact that Rondell Homes are good neighbors.
78-1477
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour closed the public hearing.
During Council discussion, in response to Councilman Roth, Mr. Case reviewed
once again his plans for providing buffering of his project from the adjacent
residences, which would include a block wall of between 6 to 8 feet; a 10-foot
heavily landscaped area which will be accessible only for landscape maintenance
through a locked gate and a 10-foot patio to be used by the tenants of the apart-
ment unit only.
Miss Santalahti pointed out for Councilwoman Kaywood that the subject property is
entirely zoned commercial except for a portion which, however, is under Resolution
of Intent to CL, therefore the owner technically could comply with conditions and
finalize the commercial zoning without submitted specific plans.
Under Council discussion, Councilman Roth voiced his feelings about the project,
namely that when it was last discussed on September 19, 1978, his main concern
was not the density proposed, but maintaining the integrity of the single-family
homes. However, with the proposal as shown, that there will be an inaccessible
area to be landscaped next to the fence; this has adequately covered his concern,
being that he knows it is single-family homes and single-family apartment units
which will be adjacent. In addition, he pointed out that Mr. Case has proven
himself to be a quality developer, and not a spec builder, who builds and maintains
with high standards. In reviewing the Planning Commission minutes on this zoning
petition, it appears Mr. Case did go back and revise his plans to comply with what
the Planning Commission requested. In addition, the development proposal requires
no variances from Code which is unusual. For these reasons, Councilman Roth indi-
cated he was in full support of the project.
Councilman Kott attempted to clarify whether Mrs. Donley had indicated she felt
there were no changes in the plans since the public hearing in September, and Mrs.
Donley explained that on the original plan there was a provision for 10-foot
patios and 10 feet of landscaping. She commented that Mr. Case has not added
anything to this except a locked gate.
Mayor Seymour summarized that in the past, the Council and Planning Commission
have been consistent in requiring a 20-foot buffer and to his knowledge this is
the first time the Council has been faced with the prospect of sacrificing 10 feet
of that buffer zone by allowing it to be used for patios. He recalled seeing buffer
zones as open space-type areas. Further, he noted that all of the units proposed
on the northerly property line, which has the greatest impact on the single-family
tract adjacent, are designated to be one-bedroom units, as well as those on the
east property line. He felt that the strategic locations of these similar units
on the periphery should alleviate the conditions of concern to the adjacent home-
owners to some extent.
Mayor Seymour, by a show of hands of those residents present who would be affected
by the fence, determined that the majority would prefer a fence to be built at 7 feet
over the grade elevation. In addition, he requested recommendations from City staff
as to what type of trees and shrubs the developer should use to insure there would
be rapid growth and maturation, and Miss Santalahti related the minimum Code require---'
men ~s .
78-1478
qi,,ty Hal!~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Case if he would be willing to stipulate to the approval
by City staff of a landscape plan indicating plant materials to be used which
would reach decent maturity within a period of 2 years. Mr. Case so stipulated.
Mayor Seymour summarized that he felt the impact on the single-family residential
homeowner would be less with the one-story, adult-apartment type of use than it
would be with a condominium or single-family residential development.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Seymour's statement and added that,
like it or not, this parcel could go commercial, as the Resolution of Intent to
rezone to that designation was approved some time ago, and to her mind there is
no question but that a commercial use on this property would have a serious impact
on the lives of the area residents. She also noted that with condominium or
RS-7200/RS-5000 development, the homeowners would be faced with the prospect of
2-story construction 15 feet from their property line. Therefore, she believed
the homeowners would have a much better buffer with this project.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-709 for adoption, authorizing the
preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, and approving
the development proposal as submitted with the following stipulation: (1) that the
one-bedroom units be placed on the periphery of the project; (2) that a 7-foot wall
be built on the property line everywhere it abuts single-family residential homes;
(3) that the applicant submit for approval a landscaping plan which will show plant
materials to be used in the 10-foot buffer zone which would reach decent maturity
within a period of two years; and further subject to the conditions recommended by
the City Planning Commission as follow:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum
of three and one-half dollars ($3.50) per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for street
lighting purposes.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of ninety-five cents (95¢) per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree
planting purposes.
3. That no driveway onto Lincoln Avenue shall be located closer than 25 feet to
the east property line and that the precise location shall be subject to the approval
of the City Traffic Engineer.
4. That sidewalks shall be installed along Lincoln Avenue as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
6. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
78-1479
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
8. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
10. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Council Policy No. 214) amounting to $36.00 per each new dwelling unit prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights
granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning
Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date
hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
13. That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-709: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (78-79-4, RM-1200)
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-709 duly passed and adopted.
In explaining his "No" vote, Councilman Kott remarked that he feels probably the
developer and staff have done a tremendous job on this property. Mr. Case has
obviously tried to accommodate every wish he could, however, for.whatever reasons,
the area residents did not feel this to be a good project for their neighborhood.
Councilman Kott stated he is sensitive to the wishes of the people and their right
to determine the neighborhoods in which they live, and, therefore, could not vote
favorably on the project.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-26A - REHEARING: In accordance with the
application filed by Rondell Homes, Inc., a rehearing was held on the request to
abandon existing public utility easements located north of Lincoln Avenue, east of
Brookhurst Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-682, duly published in the Anaheim
Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
78-1480
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The determination that this application is categorically exempt from the require-
ment to prepare an EIR was ratified by the City Council on September 19, 1978.
Report of the City Engineer and excerpt from the City Planning Commission minutes
were submitted recommending unconditional approval of subject abandonment.
During the public input sections of the above public hearing, Mrs. Kathleen Grose,
2114 Sunset Avenue, questioned the request to abandon the public service easements,
since it was her understanding that all of the homeowners along Sunset were fee
owners of the easement running along the rear 10 feet of their homes and that they
have granted the County permission to utilize same for utility poles, conduits and
etc.
Mr. Richard Donley, 117 North Aladdin Drive, requested that since this is the
first time most of the homeowners were made aware of this abandonment petition,
that the Council continue decision on the matter.
In response to Mr. Donley, it was explained that the Resolution of Intent to
abandon property is both published and posted in accordance with legal requirements.
Miss Santalahti, using a map, showed the exact location of the proposed easements
to be abandoned indicating that it is not the easement referred to by Mrs. Grose
which lies across the rear of the properties on Sunset, but is an abandoned pump
site, 5 feet wide and 312 feet long, which is entirely located on the applicant's
property.
Mrs. Grose again questioned why 10 feet of her property is being taken and was
assured by Mayor Seymour that no one will be permitted to occupy her private
property; that whatever this developer builds, including the perimeter block wall,
would be located entirely on his property line and not hers.
There were no further comments or questions regarding the abandonment and Mayor
Seymour closed the public hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-710 for adoption, approving Abandon-
ment No. 77-26A, as recommended by the City Engineer and City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-710: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-26A,
north of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street)
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-710 duly passed and adopted.
78-1481
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 5 minutes. (8:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (8:45 P.M.)
180: EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE RENEWAL: Mr. Talley explained that
the matter of renewal of the Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance policy was not
scheduled on the October 31, 1978 agenda and is being brought up now because of
the need to renew prior to the expiration date, November 1, 1978. He related the
circumstances which prevented this from being a scheduled item, namely that the
City's broker, Continental General, was requested in early September to secure
quotations for the Workers' Compensation excess insurance and, in fact, he (Mr.
Talley) was personal~ hopeful that the matter could have been scheduled two weeks
ago to allow the Council two meetings in which to consider it. However, as of the
closing date for this week's agenda (Wednesday, October 25, 1978) Mr. Parker was
not able to provide a quotation. It was not until then that a second insurance
broker, Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto was allowed to attempt to secure this coverage
for the City.
Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto have submitted this coverage in two parts, the first
$2 million with one carrier in excess of $250,000 or $500,000; and the second part
$3 million excess insurance with another firm. Mr. Parker of Continental General
has also submitted a quotation on the second layer (the $3 million dollars worth
of excess insurance), but his quotation is with a non-admitted carrier. Mr. Talley
explained that apparently under the rules of the State of California Insurance
Commission, he has to withdraw that quote because it is from the same company and
in the same amount. Mr. Talley stated that normally, City staff would recommend
the insurance be placed entirely with the broker providing total coverage; however,
in this instance, Mr. Parker has requested that the City give him consideration for
the first $2 million inasmuch as both agents are suing the same carrier. Mr. Talley
advised that the matter is brought to Council for a policy decision.
Mr. Talley reiterated that the City had received neither one of these quotations
as of last Wednesday at close of agenda, but that the matter had to be brought
to Council at this meeting because of the policy expiration on November 1, 1978.
Mr. Hal Parker of Continental General Insurance advised that he had submitted a
quote by telephone at the earliest possible date from Employers Reinsurance. He
advised that he could have renewed at the same premium as last year as early as
September 11, 1978, but he did not want to accept that as he felt it his duty to
secure the best possible quote and, therefore, he continued to work with Employers
Reinsurance, submitting additional information until he did receive the lower quote
on Wednesday, October 25, 1978. This was called in to Mr. Love's office on that
date and he was advised they would confirm it in writing the next day. Once they
had secured that quotation they then had to re-enter the market to obtain the
second layer of $3 million worth of excess insurance. They were asked to obtain
quotes on both $250,000 and $500,000 self-insured retention and the Employers
Reinsurance quote for this coverage, based on a payroll of $36,600,000 amounts
to a premium amount of $34,000 at a rate of .1085.
78-1482
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Parker concluded that if Council decides to grant the first layer to the firm
of Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto, his company, still being the Broker of Record,
would bind that coverage for the City as a courtesy.
In response to the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Parker explained that this
situation is just the reverse of what happened previously; that in this instance
the admitted insurer had submitted a higher quote and therefore the non-admitted
insurer is required to withdraw the low quotation.
Councilman Roth expressed his concern and frustration over the fact that each time
the City's insurance policies come up to expiration, the Council is placed in the
position of having to make a last minute decision because the expiration time is
only hours and minutes away. He requested that all involved in these matters be
aware that he does not want to act on insurance premiums one or two hours before
the deadline.
Mr. Talley stated that he would take the responsibility for the lateness of this
item and related that he believed, if City staff could approach insurance matters
in what he considers a normal business-like manner, these situations would not
occur. However, there has unfortunately been a lot of emotion and problems atten-
dant to the City's insurance coverage. He stated that, in his opinion, the dead-
line date for submission of the quotations was two weeks ago, but this came and
went, and he personally required Mr. Love to leave the matter open for one more week
as no quotes had, as yet, been received from Continental General. He explained
that he did this because he felt the administrative staff would be severely
criticized if they had not allowed the extra week. However, if he had sufficient
latitude in these issues, he personally would have secured another broker about
the first week of October.
Mr. Love stated that although Mr. Parker indicated he could bring in last year's
rates from Employer's Reinsurance, his records indicate that last year's rate
was .1475, whereas the rate quoted by Mr. Parker for this year is .1516, which is
higher. He added that in his experience in the workers' compensation insurance
field, Employer's Reinsurance of Kansas City, Missouri, is the only company which
will bid on public agencies self-insured retention, first layer for workers' compen-
sation excess since 1966. As far as preparation is concerned, the agent needs
only to submit the information on payroll and losses, which was provided to him
in adequate time. He noted that the second broker, Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto
was able to submit a quotation from an admitted carrier within 24 hours of being
asked to do so.
Mr. Parker contended that it was necessary to renegotiate with the insurance com-
pany 6 to 8 times as he refused to accept quotes and asked them to reconsider on
a different basis. He stressed that the problem in this type of insurance is
gaining quotes on the first layer; that he had confirmation on the second layer
within 48 hours after he received the premium indication.
Mayor Seymour inquired what complications would be involved if the City were to
take the first $2 million from Continental General and the next insurance layer
from Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto.
78-1483
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ciocatto explained that generally an account is handled by only one agency.
He indicated they could probably work with the situation although it would be
very unusual, primarily because two different agencies would be involved with the
same line of insurance.
Mr. Love commented on the price differential as reported in his memorandum dated
October 31, 1978, to the City Manager and City Council, comparing the two quota-
tions, when the cost of necessary fees and taxes are added to the non-admitted
insurer's bid, then the Firemen's Fund bid from Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto is
actually lower by a few dollars.
Mr. Akasaka voiced the opinion that his firm is the only one which came through
by securing $5 million worth of insurance and having done this, he felt they
deserved to receive the total insurance package.
In response to Mr. Parker's comment that Continental General also did the job
completely and that the second broker is using their quote for the first layer,
Mr. Ciocatto replied that a member of their firm had to fly to San Francisco to
get the answers necessary and the best possible program for the City. In addition,
he explained that his firm, not being familiar with the City's account, had to put
in a great deal of time on it; it is not as though they just walked in and picked
it up.
In answer to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Love reviewed the chronology of events lead-
ing to the late submittal of the quotations for Workers' Compensation Excess Insur-
ance, i.e., on September 11, 1978 at a meeting Mr. Parker was requested to submit
early quotations for this insurance (by October 18, 1979); that request was repeated
when they again met on October 6, 1978. Mr. Love also advised that when no quota-
tions were received by October 24, 1978, and another broker was authorized to obtain
quotations, he did not so inform Mr. Parker and that it is not common practice in
the industry to advise a broker in this situation that there is someone else in
the market trying to obtain bids. In addition, he noted that Continental General
is not the Broker of Record on this particular issuance of insurance, but he was
instructed by the City Council to invite participation by Continental General on
this insurance, which he did.
It was further ascertained by Mr. Overholt from both Mr. Parker and Mr. Love that
Mr. Parker was advised that they needed these quotations by the 18th of October.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that this situation is absolutely the reverse
of the last one, for which Mr. Parker severely criticized the broker from Los
Angeles.
Councilman Roth observed that if Mr. Parker of Continental General is not the
Broker of Record for the City on this type of insurance, why then can't the City
solicit several quotations from the industry in order to obtain the best price
for the taxpayers of the community.
In further discussion as to the potential solution to the insurance dilemma by
hiring a consultant to formulate an approach to the City's insurance business,
Mr. Talley stated that he does not know what the consultant will recommend, but
he thinks the revised program may include a Broker of Record for certain phases
¸IT r
78-1484
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
of the City's insurance, but not for others. Further, a process will be recom-
mended whereby a Broker of Record could be selected if the panel feels it is in
the best interest of the City.
Mr. Talley pointed out how difficult it is to compare insurance quotations, as
the rates change over the years as payroll goes up; that once the premium is
developed by taking the rate and multiplying this by the amount of payroll, you
still have to add to this a percentage for taxes and a 5 percent one-time broker's
fee.
Mr. Parker acknowledged that with taxes included, although the rate quoted by his
firm is lower per hundred dollars of payroll in the first year, the total quote is
somewhat higher. It would, however, be $600 lower in the second year.
Mr. Talley added to Mr. Parker's statement that the rate would be lower next year,
all other things being equal, and emphasized that the City's experience with insur-
ance carriers is that they do not receive the same rate year after year.
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Overholt moved that the
Council accept the offer for Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance of over $5
million with the self-insured retention of $500,000 from Akasaka, Ortiz and
Ciocatto Insurance Associates, Inc. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt explained that he feels the insurance account should be
given this firm since no one has even inferred they did not move quickly and
they did make available a first-year quote which is lower; in addition, at least
one member of the firm is an Anaheim resident. He suggested that Mr. Parker
should have kept the City apprised, starting September ll, 1978, when he was first
asked to quote on the insurance, on what he was doing. In this instance, he noted
that he is convinced Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto have submitted the lower bid, and
he is convinced as well that they did exactly what they were asked to do and did
it quickly. Therefore, he feels they are entitled to benefit from their efforts.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would not support the motion because it is
apparent to him that the Risk Manager has had it in his mind that one way or
another, he would do away with the process of doing business with local Anaheim
businessmen, which has been the philosophy of the City Council for years. He
added that what is of concern to him, as an elected official, are the 35 to 50
Continental General employees' jobs. Further, he stated he had not heard any
evidence that there would be any problem if the Council were to split this insur-
ance business, $2 million to Continental General and the top layer of $3 million
to the firm from Santa Ana. He further commented that it is his opinion that
Continental General is the firm that obtained the quotation initially.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that once again the Council is forced to act
only one hour before the policy expires, and it is clear to her that Continental
General was not performing for the City in this case, when the other broker ob-
tained the quotation in 24 hours.
78-1485
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Seymour noted that there is
plenty of evidence that the staff is seeking to undermine Mr. Parker's attempt
to do business with the City, namely that they find it necessary to tape record
his conversations.
Councilman Overholt related that he was convinced Mr. Parker did not keep Mr. Love
apprised of his activities between September 11 and October 18, 1978, which is a
period of 5 weeks, as to whether or not there were any prospects of coming up with
quotations. Then, the staff extended the time allowed one more week to the 24th
of October. Councilman Overholt stated he recognized this to be a lack of communi-
cation and disagreed with the Mayor's statement regarding staff's intent as far as
Mr. Parker is concerned.
MOTION: Councilman Kott offered a substitute motion that the Council award the first
$2 million layer to Continental General and the second layer to Akasaka, Ortiz and
Ciocatto. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
On roll call vote, the substitute motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Seymour
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
None
Roll Call vote on the prior motion to award the Excess Workers' Compensation
Insurance to Akasaka, Ortiz and Ciocatto Insurance Associates, Inc. was as
follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Kott and Seymour
None
MOTION CARRIED.
106: ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 1978-79 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: The City Manager's
memorandum dated October 24, 1978, pertaining to recommended adjustments to the
1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan, prepared in accordance with Council direction
at the Executive Management Seminar of October 4, 1978 was presented earlier in
this meeting, and following some discussion was continued to this time to allow
Mayor Seymour, who was absent earlier, an opportunity to discuss and comment
upon the proposed adjustments.
In particular, Councilman Overholt questioned whether Mayor Seymour wished to
comment upon the use of proceeds from the sale of City-owned land in the amount
of $287,241 to make up deficits, as he noted that the Mayor had previously ex-
pressed concern with this use of the funds and that is an item which is included
in the proposed adjustment. Conversely, if the Mayor's theory were carried out,
with the proposed Resource Allocation Plan reductions, a deficit of $133,000 would
remain.
Mayor Seymour summarized his views of the recommended adjustments to the Resource
Allocation Plan as follows: (1) he was disheartened to see that the extended street
sweeping program is eliminated from this fiscal year; (2) he is concerned as tc why
78-1486
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
further cuts were not made in the category of staff development seminars, travel
and meeting expenses; (3) the City Manager's recommendations do not speak to the
removal of funds for salary increases at the department head, management and
supervisory level, a potential savings of $180,000; and (4) he feels the funds
allocated for Intergovernmental Relations should be removed.
Street Sweeping Pro~ram: Mayor Seymour explained that this is one of his higher
priorities because of the complaints received from citizens regarding the lack of
this service, as well as chuckholes and total disrepair of many of the streets.
Mr. Bill Lewis explained that the street sweeping program is not being cut out,
although there is a reduction of $145,000 from the program. Rather, what this
reflects is the fact that there is a six-month lead time necessary for the start-up
of such a program during which the trash trucks will have to be entirely re-routed
throughout the City; the signs prepared and posted; ordinances enacted; sweeping
equipment repaired and replaced and additional equipment purchased; people employed
and trained, etc. He stressed that all of these must be under control before the
program is actually implemented full-time and his estimate is that it will take at
least six months to accomplish these things. The reduction shown reflects the
savings from the postponement of the program from July 1, 1979 to November 1, 1979.
Mr. Piersall shared the Mayor's concern for the street maintenance program and
noted that during the fiscal year 1979-80, it is planned to accomplish a minimum
of 8 million square feet of preventive maintenance. More of the Public Works'
construction dollars are being converted to maintenance-type programs. Mr. Piersall
voiced the opinion that throughout the Orange County and Southern California area,
the City of Anaheim's preventive maintenance program for streets is equal to any
which is being done.
Salary Increases for Department Heads, Program Managers and Supervisory Employees:
Mr. Talley explained that it was his understanding from the discussion at a work
session meeting, which all department heads attended, that if the City Council
approved the bargained increases for the unrepresented and represented work units,
that the Mayor would support Council action to see that the department heads, pro-
gram managers and division heads would be treated as well, if they would support
an attempt to reduce those wage agreements. Therefore, these Resource Allocation
Plan adjustments do contemplate that management staff would be treated in a like
manner, i.e., that their performance would be evaluated and raises approved based
on individual performance, not to exceed the 6 percent received by the represented
and unrepresented work units.
Mayor Seymour stated that what he originally suggested during budget hearings was
that the department heads take a 10 percent cut in pay; then, when the State funds
appeared to become available, he had suggested that if management, could convince the
employee organizations, with whom the City had already contracted, to postpone
their already agreed upon 6 percent pay increase, then, to the degree the City was
successful in that venture, that is how the department heads, management and super-
visory staff would be treated. He noted that as a matter of fact the employee
organizations did not postpone one penny for one day. In his opinion, any department
head, management or supervisory raises were dependent upon the success of that venture.
Mayor Seymour stressed that he would not support the proposed salary increases which
he calculates would cost another $494,106. Mayor Seymour concluded that reviewing
what the City Manager has proposed and comparing this with what he personally thinks
78-1487
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the City can live with, there is a discrepancy of $803~246.
Staff Development Seminarm~ Travel and Meeting Expenses: Mayor Seymour voiced
the opinion that these amounts should be cut directly in half.
Mayor Seymour further advised that his position on the use of the funds derived
from the sale of City-owned property has not changed, he is not in favor of using
these monies to make up budget deficits.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the adjustments to the 1978-79 Resource
Allocation Plan be approved in accordance with the recommendations of the City
Manager am limted in his memorandum dated October 24, 1978, as follows:
1. Reduce appropriations for travel and meeting (6501) and Staff Development
and Seminar (6540) Accounts impacting the General Fund by $56,638.
2. Reduce expenditure appropriations in the amount of $481,431 to implement
low-priority cost reductions.
3. Authorize expenditure appropriation reductions totalling $500,000 in various
Salary and Benefits Accounts impacting the General Fund to reflect savings gener-
ated by vacancies and delayed hirings.
4. Reduce by $145,170 the funds appropriated in Program No. 234 for the expanded
street sweeping program to reflect the two-year implementation schedule.
5. Increase revenue appropriations by $1,079,697 to reflect new revenue projections
and the unanticipated sale of City-owned land.
6. Reduce the transfer from the Electric Utility Fund to the General Fund by
$200,000.
7. Reduce the transfer from the General Benefits Fund to the General Fund by
$1,908,808.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
For the record, Councilman Roth pointed out that he did not believe the vote on
this particular motion would cause any automatic pay increases for anyone, that
any pay increases would require approval by the City Council.
Roll call vote on the foregoing motion was requested by Councilman Kott:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Kott and Seymour
None
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
City Council approved the list of $469,725 in reserve appropriations from the
prior fiscal year to cover those items which were budgeted, but not received in
that year. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1488
City Ha~l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
153/180: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICA-
TIONS - PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES: The description of the proposed administrative
procedure to process applications for disability retirement of Fire and Police
personnel was submitted earlier in the meeting and continued to this time for
full Council.
Mr. Talley also explained that the City Attorney recommends that the Council
authorize the committee, if established, to secure a qualified medical doctor
under contract to the City to provide them with reports on the conditions of the
disability retirement applicants. It was noted, in response to Councilwoman
Kaywood, that these medical examinations would cost approximately $500 each.
Mr. Hopkins noted that he believed it is necessary that the Council place on record,
in the event of litigation, that this proposed Safety Committee has been designated
by them to be the Medical Disability Retirement Evaluation Committee. With regard
to his second recommendation that a physician be employed to perform an independent
medical evaluation of the applicants, acting on the basis of the best interest of
the City and employee, he felt this is necessary if the Council is going to make
the final decision.
Mr. Hopkins cautioned further in this process that the Brown Act provides no excep-
tion for this type of proceeding. Therefore, by having the independent examiners
report, he could also evaluate the report submitted from the applicant's doctor
and the State Employment Compensation's doctor. It was further noted that the
revised administrative procedure provides for the Assistant City Manager to chair
the Committee reviewing these applications and the City Manager would have no part
in the process, except that the recommendations would be forwarded to him from the
Committee for passing on to the Council.
Mr. Talley pointed out that the proposed administrative procedure is rather unique,
is not used by any major city, and he suspects that if a plaintiff's attorney re-
quested that all medical reports be considered before the City Council, they may
find themselves with a full-blown public hearing on any given retirement case.
Mayor Seymour recalled that the instructions given by the Council were for the
process to remain essentially the same as it was in the past, however, the City
Council, rather than the City Manager, would have the authority to make the final
decision.
Mr. Talley concurred that this was the Council's direction, however, once the City
Council has to make the final decision, they also have the potentiality for the
hearing, being the final Board of Appeal.
Mr. Hopkins counseled that according to the resolution adopted by the City Council
on September 5, 1978, the Council makes the final determination and since the Brown
Act does not provide for this procedure to be conducted in Executive Session, the
attorney for the applicant could bring in everything connected with the case at a
Council meeting.
Several variations to the proposed process were suggested and discussed in an
attempt to keep the appeal process from occurring at a Council meeting and during
this discussion, the Council Members clarified that the administrative process they
78-1489
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 31~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
desire is one whereby the Safety Committee makes their recommendation on the ~
retirement application to the City Manager (he makes the decision, however, the
City Council retains the right to challenge that decision if they see fit to do
so, i.e., a ratification process whereby the Council has an opportunity to participate.
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded
by Councilman Kott, the matter of establishing an administrative procedure for pro-
cessing disability retirement applications for public safety employees, was continued
to the meeting of November 21, 1978, to be reviewed further by both the City Manager
and City Attorney for further refinement to the procedure in line with the Council's
discussion this date. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:40 P.M.