1977/07/1977-814
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
STADIUM--CONVENTION CENTER--GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler.
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Takuji Tamaru
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR: Phil Schwartze
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti
BUYER, PURCHASE DIVISION OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT: Lewis Keller
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Greg Yates of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Thom and approved
by the City Council:
"Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Awareness Week" - July 25-31, 1977
"Healthy Baby Week in Anaheim" - July 24-30, 1977
"Energy Fair Week in Anaheim" - November 1-7, 1977
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes
of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held June 7, 1977 were approved.
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 Thom seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: The City Clerk reported that no warrants
were issued for this period.
123: PROCUREMENT OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AND ACQUISITION OF SOFTWARE PACKAGE:
Data Processing Director, "Tug" Tamaru stated that the first proposed resolution
for lease of an IBM 333-2 Disk Storage Controller was an item to upgrade the
present Disk Storage system and available only through the IBM Corporation. Al-
though another manufacturer's equipment could be purchased to upgrade the system,
costs would be higher. The second proposed resolution for lease of an IBM
Mod Chg E01 to E04, 3705-11070 was somewhat different in that it was the lowest
bid of approximately 10 received. He recommended the lease of both pieces of
equipment for a term of four years.
77-815
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, letter agree-
ments dated June 28 and June 24, 1977 were authorized with Security Pacific
National Bank for the lease of an IBM 333-2 Disk Storage Controller and an IBM
Mod Chg E01 to E04, 3705-11070. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 77R-512 and 77R-513 for adoption as
recommended in memorandum dated July 1, 1977 from the Computer Operations
Manager and confirmed by the Data Processing Director. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-512: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
BANK PERTAINING TO THE LEASE OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (IBM 3333-2 Disk Storage Controller)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-513: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
BANK PERTAINING TO THE LEASE OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (IBM Mod Chg E01 to E04 3705-11070)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-512 and 77R-513 duly passed and adopted.
153: AMENDMENTS TO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RULE 2: In answer to Councilman
Kott, City Manager William Talley explained that relative to the proposed ordinance
and resolution, approximately a year ago when the City was in labor discussions
with AMEA, the Fact Finder recommended the City incorporate the proposed amendments
into their employee-employer relations rules. They were technical provisions, the
first of which shortened times involved and the other distinctly recognized the con-
tract bar clause.
Personnel Director Garry McRae explained that the contract bar provision provided
that during the course of an agreement, challenges could not be made to the principle
organization representing the employees until just before termination of the con-
tract, and such a provision only had significance during a multi-year agreement.
He also briefly explained the accretion provision.
Councilman Seymour, referring to the proposed ordinance, noted in Section 1.06.120.080,
upon the request of an employee to be excluded from an existing unit of representa-
tion, concurrence of the City management representative and the recognized employee
organization was necessary before the employee could withdraw if he wished to do so.
Mr. McRae stated that was necessary under the proposed procedure, but it was a short
cut. If there was no agreement, then the employee would have to petition for a
modification of the unit which then became a different process. The proposed pro-
cedure would permit that action on a short-cut basis and in a very inexpensive way
if everyone was in agreement.
77-816
.City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
It was Councilman Seymour's understanding that if such an employee, on his own
volition, wanted to leave an employee organization, it was not possible to do so
unless approval was given by the City management representative, as well as the
employee organization.
Mr. McRae explained there was a difference between a position and an employee;
Councilman Seymour noted that the proposed ordinance specifically stated, employee.
Further discussion followed wherein Mr. McRae stressed that no one was forced to
pay dues and that the wording was not meant to infer a closed union shop as sug-
gested by Councilman Seymour.
At the conclusion of discussion, Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry stated that
the particular section in the proposed ordinance could be reworded.
By general Council consent and as agreed to by Personnel Director McRae, in Section
One of proposed Ordinance No. 3741, Section 1.06.020.080, line 14, "said employee"
was amended to "said position."
Mr. McRae stated he would notify the employee organization that such action was
taken and if there were any objections by the time of second reading, such ob-
jection could be submitted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3741: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3741 for first
reading amended as articulated.
ORDINANCE NO. 3741: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION
1.06.120.080 AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 1.06.030.070 OF TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.06
PERTAINING TO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-514 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated July 13, 1977 from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-514: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-193 BY CHANGING SECTIONS 2.02, 2.04, 2.07, 2.08, 2.1~,
2.2 AND 2.3 OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RULE 2., REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-514 duly passed and adopted.
123: OPTION TO PUCHASE REMAINING NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY PROPERTY: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-515 for adoption as recommended in memorandum
dated July 13, 1977 from the City Engineer with a minor change to add Assistant
City Attorney, in addition to the City Attorney, as being authorized to execute
the agreement since the City Attorney was presently out of the City. Refer to
Resolution Book.
77-817
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-515: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
EXERCISING AN OPTION TO PURCHASE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT-
ING THE PAYMENT THEREFOR. (Nalco Chemical Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-515 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (1:52 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (1:57 P.M.)
174: INNOVATIVE PROJECT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT, HUD GRANT (H-2582-RG): On motion
by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, report on the subject program
dated July 13, 1977 from the City Manager submitted for information only was received
and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
156: ELEVENTH ANNUAL CALIFORNIA POLICE OLYMPICS: Detective Jim Watkins of the
Anaheim Police Department briefed the Council on the forthcoming Police Olympics
to be held in Santa Ana on July 28 through 31, 1977, where over 2,000 police
officers were scheduled to compete in 36 events, 49 of whom were participating
from Anaheim. The participating officers were scheduling vacation and accumulated
comp time when competing in events scheduled on their day. No one was asking for
the entire time off.
Detective Watkins again requested of the Council as in the past years to allow
some of the officers to participate in their events on City business time. He
explained that if events were scheduled on the same day the officer was to work
and it took three hours of that day, they would then return to work and complete
the rest of their work day. Also, no travel time was necessary due to the locale.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, use of City time
for those members of the Anaheim Police Department competing in the llth Annual
California Police Olympics, was authorized as in prior years. MOTION CARRIED.
158: PROPOSED SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND RAMPART STREET:
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on three seoarate but related communications
from the Matlow-Kennedy Corporation, all dated June~15, 1977 which, in essence,
were proposals as follows: (1) Enter into a long-term agreement for the proposed
development of City-owned property on the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue
and Rampart Street (Item A). (2) Possible development of State-owned property being
considered for acquisition by the City, which property was considered to be land
locked by City-owned property (Item B). (3) The possibility of entering into a
long-term agreement relative to the Wagner-Michel parcel on the southeast portion
of the Anaheim Stadium parking area proposed to be improved and to exchange the new
spaces for a like number of spaces on the southeast parcel of the property (Item C).
77-818
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The appropriate City department heads reviewed the proposals with representatives
of the Matlow-Kennedy Corporation on June 24, 1977. As a result, recommendations
and correlating data were supplied and two memorandums dated July 13, 1977 on
Item A, two memorandums dated July 12, 1977, one relative to Item B and one to
Item C, submitted jointly by the Director of Public Works, Thornton Piersall and
City Engineer, James Maddox (on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
Mr. Talley then explained for Councilman Kott that the letter from Matlow-Kennedy
relative to the City's possible acquisition of State-owned property was based
upon Mr. Jack Sinclair's activity regarding the Multimodal Group proposal in the
same general area approximately a year prior. Apparently, Mr. Sinclair made an
error in his understanding. The City had not represented to Mr. Kennedy at any
time that it was in the acquisition stage for that particular piece of property.
Further discussion followed between Council and staff wherein the Mayor, in answer
to Councilman Roth's concern that other such proposals should be considered before
acting on the one submitted, explained that for the past several years, everyone
in the development business was aware that the City was interested in receiving
proposals on the subject excess property, and it was no secret. The mechanics of
implementing such a proposal was another matter. He thereupon acknowledged the
representative of Matlow-Kennedy Corporation.
Mr. Kenfield E. Kennedy, Matlow-Kennedy Corporation, 12301 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 600, Los Angeles, stated they were interested in the City of Anaheim as
a location to bring office tenants to and thus retained Mr. George Vernon Russell,
architect, to present an idea on how they might tie together the Rampart Street
property. After speaking to staff and those connected with the Stadium, it became
obvious that a connector from Rampart Street across Orangewood to the Stadium lot
for parking during non-Stadium use would be in order which could be utilized for
business purposes and, as well, provide revenue to the City.
Mr. George Vernon Russell, 410 North Rosenell Terrace, Los Angeles, explained the
basic concept depicted from a site development plan and an aerial photograph of
the subject property. The subject complex would be an ensemble of buildings with
the possibility of adding later increments to it, one of the problems being to
tie in the parking lot to the north. A bridge connector from the complex to
the additional parking lot would be a closed pavillion concourse consisting of
shops, restaurants and the like oriented toward the population occupying the
complex. Of the property proposed to be acquired, 278,000 square feet could be
comfortably developed with 450 to 500 parking spaces. Mr. Russell also explained
the traffic pattern through the complex, as well as other details of the proposal.
Mr. Kennedy interjected that what they tried to do in engaging Mr. Russell was to
provide an office complex that would give them an opportunity to compete with other
areas of Orange County. The proposed site location with the availability of the
freeway, plus parking at the Stadium, would attract the business community who might
be thinking of relocating and the parking was an asset which they could afford to
pay the City for part-time use. Subsequent to their original letter, another
communication had been sent which indicated that if acquisition was available, they
would also be interested in entering into a land disposition agreement enabling them
to acquire the property after planning proceeded further.
77-8lq
!~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Kennedy stated that approximately 500 parking
spaces would be utilized in the Stadium parking lot. The main thrust was to
provide a bridge connector unit as explained by Mr. Russell. A rendering of
the bridge was presented to the Council. The possibility of motel-type accommoda-
tions was also considered and in talking with Tom Liegler, Stadium--Convention
Center--Golf Director, the impression was given that a motel facility adjacent to
the Stadium would be desirable. He (Kennedy) was interested in making the complex
a destination point for people to come to during the off season.
Mr. Russell explained from the site plan where an empty space would be created
involving approximately 300 parking slots which they intended to landscape so
that it would relate to the complex rather than remain an empty space.
Councilman Seymour wanted to know with the 450 to 500 parking spaces provided on
the parcel south of Orangewood, how such utilization could insure that the addi-
tional 300 spaces on the other side of Orangewood would be used. Although he was
supportive of the concept in using existing parking facilities, the City derived a
great amount of revenue from the parking lot business. He did not understand how
people could be directed as to where to park.
Mr. Kennedy then expanded upon their proposed plan and gave examples of similar
projects in Los Angeles. They planned to mass enough office space in close
proximity to the parking area, about which Councilman Seymour was concerned, in
order to make it the closest area to park.
Mr. Tom Liegler stated that he had seen the drawings for the first time today, but
the concept was discussed with him at one meeting and from it evolved the plan
presented. He explained since Anaheim owned the land across the street from the
Stadium and as the City's representative of the Stadium, whatever proposed develop-
ment would finally be built on the property, that it be in direct coordination with
Anaheim Stadium traffic flow, tenants and, most importantly, provide income to the
City. He was referring not only to the particular parcel under discussion, but
also all lands in and around the Stadium.
Concerning potential conflict relative to the parking lot as questioned by Council-
man Kott, Mr. Liegler stated it was an operational problem that he was certain could
be resolved. Anaheim was under contractual obligation to provide 12,000 spaces for
the California Angels parking, and they could provide such parking. There was also
additional acreage along Katella that could be improved and easily cared for. The
thinking always was to make the parking lot a multipurpose one just as the Stadium.
Councilman Roth was concerned about the point enumerated during the presentation
regarding separation with planters. He contended that with such a separation, the
parking spaces lost would have to be replaced, and it would take some time to make
up the cost of buying additional land for new parking.
Mr. Liegler explained that enough flexibility was provided for in the original
parking area concept so that numerous parking areas could be divided off and the
islands mentioned in the presentation were already available. He, too, was in
favor of a planter separation. It was a detail that could be worked out if the
dollar return was there for the City.
77-820
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Further discussion followed relative to available parking spaces, at the conclusion
of which, Mr. Liegler stated that 14,000 were accommodated for rock concerts and
adequate service for the proposed improvement program, as well as California Angel
requirements, could be met on the present lot without any exchange. He reiterated
that over 14,000 vehicles were parked at one time.
The Mayor stated that if the City proceeded with the Matlow-Kennedy proposal, it
was on property that had been open for such proposals since the mid 60's including
a metroport proposal in 1968 or 1969. The City had taken the posture that they
were receptive to documented development proposals in order for the Council to
have something to react to.
For clarification, Councilman Seymour asked Mr. Kennedy if, in fact, he was request-
ing a time period in which plans could be firmed up, details worked out and an
opportunity for the property to be evaluated in order to put a specific development
proposal together for an exclusive right to negotiate agreement. If so, he wanted
to know the minimum amount of time involved and the amount of earnest cash they
were willing to deposit in a neutral depository subject to completion of the agree-
ment.
Mr. Kennedy stated that the price of the property would have to be set by an MAI
appraiser. Thus, the timing would be determined by submittal of an appraisal.
They would then like to enter into an exclusive right to negotiate agreement for
90 to 120 days. A period of time would then be needed in which to complete plans
and if a price were agreed upon, they would buy the property. The amount of
earnest money could be anywhere from 2 percent to 5 percent of the price of the
property, and they would be willing to operate in that fashion.
Councilman Seymour expressed his concern that during the lengthy process on a pre-
vious proposal with Multimodal, no earnest money was posted.
Mr. Kennedy said he would be willing to post $25,000 to $50,000 which he felt would
be in the range of 2 to 5 percent.
In answer to Councilman Seymour relative to the length of time for an exclusive
right to negotiate agreement, Mr. Kennedy reiterated the need first for an appraisal
but during that time the process could be proceeding simultaneously. Ninety to
120 days would be needed to finalize the contract between the Council and their
Counsel, and since the proposed project involved a sizable undertaking of
approximately $15 million to $20 million of investment capital, he wanted to be
certain Mr. Russell and their construction people considered it feasible. There-
after, relative to preliminary drawings and the like with subsequent submission
to the Building Division, a minimum of 180 days an~ a maximum of 360 days would be
necessary, depending upon approvals in order to break ground. Since the project
would be phased, it would take approximately 12 to 14 months to complete a single
phase. Ninety to 120 days was acceptable for the exclusive right to negotiate
agreement.
Councilman Kott suggested that the concept as presented be approved and that Mr.
Kennedy obtain an appraisal and submit an agreement suitable to him for the exclusive
right process. He wanted the matter put on a businesslike basis.
77-821
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour recommended, consistent with the direction Council-
man Kott proposed, that staff be instructed to (1) receive a deposit, earnest
money or letter of credit, in the amount of $50,000 from Mr. Kennedy in the
morning or as soon as possible and, (2) instruct staff, the City Manager, Mr.
Liegler, and other appropriate department heads to come back to Council in three
weeks, having received the $50,000, with a specific exclusive right to negotiate
agreement for a period of 90 to 120 days at which time, if the Council found the
agreement satisfactory, the City would incur the expense of an MAI appraiser at
a cost of approximately $950. This would assure that the appraiser was working
for the City thus providing a sense of security in appraising property which he
considered to have a value of between $1.5 million and $2 million. Councilman
Seymour offered the foregoing as a motion. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that although he considered the
proposal a good one, there was still a period of time to make known the fact that
the property was available to ascertain if any other proposals would be forthcoming
rather than tying the property up under an exclusive right agreement. This was
of concern to him.
Mayor Thom reiterated that since the 1960s it had been no secret that City would
entertain development proposals, and presently there was nothing to prevent anyone
else from coming in.
Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Piersall, Director of Public Works, indicated
that utilizing the appraiser who performed the appraisal on the fire training facility
in close proximity to the subject property, it would take approximately 45 days to
complete the appraisal.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the following vote;
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kay-wood, staff was
authorized to pursue acquisition of the excess 7.09 acres of land owned by the
State adjacent to and east of the Stadium, as recommended in memorandum dated
July 12, 1977 ~rom the Director of Public Works and City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
As noted by Mr. Talley, in the absence of any proposal on developing the Wagner-
Michel parcel, no action was taken on the matter although Mr. Kennedy indicated
they were still interested in pursuing development of the parcel, however, at the
discretion of the Council.
123 AND 174: FEDERAL AID IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RRP-L059(1): Councilman Kott offered
Resolution No. 77R-516 for adoption authorizing an Agreement and Supplement No. 1
with the State, Department of Transportation, relating to installation of railroad
crossing gates on Cerritos Avenue at Southern Pacific Transportation Company Crossing
No. BM-512.75C, as recommended in memorandum dated July 12, 1977 from the City
Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
77-822
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-516: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BE25~EEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELATING TO FEDERAL AID
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS THERETO. (Agreement No. 07-5055)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-516 duly passed and adopted.
123: MAN-IN-WASHINGTON LOBBYIST PROGRAM AND REPRESENTATION OF CONSORTIUM CITIES:
Councilman Kott asked the City Manager for an example of the benefits accrued by
the taxpayer of the community because of the Man-In-Washington Program.
Mr. Talley explained that the most significant benefit was in securing EDA local
Public Works Grants; the City applied for 7 and received 6. This was a result of
liaison work performed by the City's representative, Mr. Bill Morgan. Also, two
years prior, Mr. Morgan, representing the Consortium, consolidated the entire State
of California relative to General Revenue Sharing which was renewed by the Congress
for another five years representing approximately an additional $2 million per year
to the City. He considered those to be two significant examples.
Councilman Seymour referred back to 1975 when he worked with Mr. Morgan on flood
insurance and without his (Morgan's) assistance, Anaheim would have been burdened
unfairly by bureaucratic requirements being placed on flood insurance on 90 percent
of Anaheim. Mr. Morgan, because of his knowledge of the general workings of the
bureaucracy, brought back an amended map excluding such significant numbers of homes
and businesses in the City that rather than 90 percent being affected and impacted
by the insurance, only 10 to 15 percent were affected.
Councilman Roth noted that after next year, the area would be served by a new Congress-
man and it was his opinion that the Man-In-Washington Program could be of help in
assisting the new representative. Although he was doubtful of the program when first
elected to the Council, after going to Washington where he observed the program in
action through Mr. Morgan, he was very impressed and now most supportive of the
program.
Mayor Thom explained that he would normally vote in favor of providing for the entry
of a city in the program, but he consistently did not favor the program itself and
did not consider that such participation warranted the value received. He felt that
Congressmen were supposed to act in that capacity through their staff with the City
staff without the need for another liaison member. While he agreed that the instances
cited were beneficial, such isolated cases were not sufficient for him to consider the
program favorably.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-517 for adoption as recommended in memo-
randum received July 14, 1977 from Legislative Analyst David Latshaw. Refer to
Resolution Book.
77-823
~ity Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-517: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ADDENDUM TO AN AGREEMENT FOR A ONE-YEAR
EXTENSION OF THE MAN-IN-WASHINGTON LOBBYIST PROGRAM PROVIDING FOR THE ENTRY OF THE
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY INTO THE CONSORTIUM OF CITIES WHICH INCLUDES ANAHEIM AND
WHICH CONTRACTS WITH THE LOBBYIST.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-517 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-518 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum received July 14, 1977 from the Legislative Analyst. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-518: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF
THE MAN-IN-WASHINGTON LOBBYIST PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-518 duly passed and adopted.
123 AND 153: WARREN, McVEIGH~ GRIFFIN AND HUNTINGTON - RISK MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AUDIT: In answer to Councilman Kott, Assistant City Manager
William T. Hopkins, explained that there was a limited group of firms in the risk
management business offering the type of service needed by the City. The firm
recommended in memorandum July 6, 1977 was highly recognized and expected to
perform excellent reporting to the Council. The special expertise needed was
not available in-house at the present time.
Councilman Seymour stated an alternative which he would not favor would be to create
a job position for a risk manager at a cost of $30,000 to $35,000 a year. Mr. Talley
stated that such an alternative could evolve as a recommendation from the consultants.
Councilman Seymour reiterated he would not favor such a move at this point.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-519 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-519: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
WARREN, McVEIGH, GRIFFIN & HUNTINGTON FOR RISK MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
77-824
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-519 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:10 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-50: Application by L. Kenneth
Heuler, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 on property located
on the north side of La Palma Avenue, east of Euclid Street.
The public hearing was continued from June 21, 1977 at the request of Frost Construc-
tion Company, Inc., Agent.
The City Clerk reported that a petition containing approximately 239 signatures had
been submitted, indicating opposition to the density of the proposed project.
The Mayor announced that a request for an additional continuance of the public
hearing on the subject Reclassification to August 16, 1977 was received at 8:31 A.M.
in the City Clerk's Office and the necessary fee paid. The policy of the Council
was to grant up to two continuances on any scheduled public hearing and at this
time the applicant was requesting a second continuance. He noted there were a
great number of people in the Chamber to hear the matter but if the request to
continue was granted, no testimony either from the applicant or anyone present
could be heard.
On a show of hands requested by Councilwoman Kaywood, it was ascertained that approxi-
mately 25 people were present in opposition to the proposed project, just as when the
matter was continued the first time.
The Mayor reiterated that no one could be heard and the action before the Council
was whether or not to approve or deny the request for continuance of consideration
of the reclassification.
Councilman Kott thereupon moved to deny the request for continuance. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor announced that the public hearing would proceed accordingly.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC77-105, recommended that
the subject property be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and further, recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-50 be granted
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along La Palma Avenue for tree planting
purposes.
77-825
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977~ 1:30 P.M
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east property line.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satJ~sfactory
to the City Engineer.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
9. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Glen Drive
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
10. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
11. That the proposed westerly driveway shall align with the centerline of
Dresden Street.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 3 (Revision 1).
13. That specific landscaping plans for the 20-foot wide buffer area adjacent to
the RS-7200 zoning to the west shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval; and that said landscaping shall provide effective sight
screening for the single-family residences and shall include trees on minimum
20-foot centers, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
14. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted
by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless
said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or such
further time as the City Council may grant.
15. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
77-826
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Dave Frear, Frost Construction Company, 707 South state College Boulevard,
Fullerton, stated they requested a continuance basically because of some problems
with interpretation of escrow. He would address the issues pertinent ~to the
development and not those contained in the petition of opposition, since he had
only received a copy that morning.
Mr. Frear explained that initially they submitted their design to the Planning
Commission which was turned down. They then discussed what would make the project
more palatable to the Commissioners and the community and some of the recommendations
that resulted were as follows:
(1) The addition of a 20-foot landscaped area between the development and adjacent
residential housing.
(2) Requirement for a specific landscape plan which they would be happy to provide.
(3) They would plant trees as screening devices between the development and the
adjacent residential area.
A number of other problems such as traffic, police and fire coverage of the prop-
erty were addressed by members of City staff and, amongst other things, it was
concluded that two left-turn pockets at the driveway aligned with Dresden Street
would alleviate traffic turning onto Dresden, as well as making ingress and egress
to subject property more desirable. In his opinion, staff had investigated problems
inherent in the development, and they worked with staff to arrive at solutions to
those problems.
In concluding his testimony, Mr. Frear offered the following information: (1) The
development was under the total coverage allowed in the RM-1200 zone. (2) Units
were larger than those required. (3) Ail requirements of the ordinance in that
zone were met or exceeded. (4) Coverage per net acre was 28 units and the ordinance
suggested the possibility of up to 36. (5) Density was in line with what could
normally be expected in that General Plan area and RM-1200 zoning. (6) The
development was perhaps being compared with high density units on Chevy Chase designed
entirely under different criteria. Mr. Frear emphasized that theirs would be one
of the nicer projects in the area.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Herman Presett, 1133 Crown Street, representing the group of residents who
were opposed to the reclassification, stated she had lived in the area for 20 years
and although many residents were in the audience, there were many others who could
not attend. She also submitted additional signatures in opposition over and above
the previously submitted petition containing 239 signatures, bringing the total to
approximately 250. She then gave some of the reasons for opposition to the proposed
apartment project: (1) Increased traffic problems, adding to the already existing
heavy traffic conditions on La Palma and Euclid. The impact of the Anaheim Shores
development without the proposed project had not yet been determined. It was likely
77-8,27
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
that residents of the apartment complex would soon learn to use the alternate
route of Romneya to Arbor to La Palma, thus creating a traffic flow through
the residential area, further adding to the use of this same route by other
apartments in the area. They did not want further traffic congestion in that
area.
(2) Increased crime--many items had been stolen from homes and cars in
the neighborhood, and the police frequently referred to existing apartment
dwellers in the area as the source, and some of the crimes committed were to
support drug habits. High density development would only add to the already
existing crimes and further deteriorate their living environment. The trend
was disturbing and they wanted to reverse it.
(3) Their area, according to City records, had one of the highest concentrations
of multiple-family dwellings in the City. They did not accept the logic expressed
by one of the Planning Commissioners that the proposed development was compatible
with the area. Low density development was just as compatible since there were
many single-family dwellings in the area.
(4) There were no recreational facilties planned for the tenants of the complex.
(5) The development did not appear to be one which would attract and retain tenants
who would develop an interest in the long-range welfare of surrounding neighbor-
hoods.
Before concluding, Mrs. Presett stated that it was further suggested by the
community that the City investigate the Chevy Chase area with its multiplicity
of problems before voting on Reclassification No. 76-77-50. She had done consider-
able social welfare work in the area, and the conditions were deplorable and continuing
to deteriorate.
The Mayor interjected that the City Council had been, and presently was, investi-
gating Chevy Chase and the surrounding area for two years and recently took steps
to alleviate the trash problem. The Council was very much aware of the problems
and were actively involved in their resolution.
Mrs. Presett also explained that she had just learned of another reclassification
request for RM-1200 on the south side of La Palma about 1,300 feet east of Euclid
where the peitioner was proposing to build 18 apartments on one-half acre represent-
ing another very dense development. They were concerned over what was going to
happen to their area and expressed a need for a long-range plan which would take
into account the impact of individual Council actions. Some members of the Council
had initially been concerned about the Anaheim Shores development because of its
density and impact on the surrounding neighborhood. However, it was much less than
that associated with the proposed development.
In summary, they were not opposed to development of the property but to the density
proposed. They wanted a development compatible with the neighborhood where the
residents would have ownership interest.
77-828
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mrs. Presett stated they would prefer to see homes
or townhouses built instead of apartments, including high-rise apartments. She
pointed out that most apartments in that area were also larger in unit size than
the one- and two-bedroom units proposed with no recreational facilities which
hardly seemed conducive to a permanent type of residence.
Mr. Gerald Bushore, 548 South West Street, Manager of Backs-Kaulbars Mortuary to
the west of the proposed project, explained that although he had not signed the
petition, he would have done so if requested based on certain things he objected
to in conjunction with the proposed reclassification. He had offered to meet with
the developer who said he would do so but to that point, he (Bushore) had not been
contacted.
Mr. Bushore then briefed the Council on the items which concerned him about the
development. (1) Direct ingress and egress onto La Palma directly across from
Dresden. A more logical place for this activity and one which, in his opinion, the
Traffic Division overlooked was from a street that cut through the property just
north of La ?alma running east and west, although perhaps an alternative which
the residents would not favor since it would increase traffic in front of the
dead-end street. If the original plan materialized with a driveway opposite
Dresden, then better traffic control in the form of a signal instead of merely
left-turn lanes would be necessary.
(2) The mortuary had constructed an 18-foot buffer zone to the rear of their
building to preclude observers peering over the 7-foot back fence. If two-story
apartments were built adjacent to the mortuary, this would give an opportunity
to view their rear property and, considering the realities of their business,
would not create a pleasant environment for onlookers. As well, since children
would not be afforded adequate recreation within the complex, the mortuary parking
lot would be the only place for them to play and also give them the opportunity
to observe things they should not be exposed to.
(3) The project was far too dense for the area.
In closing, Mr. Bushore stated that the developer had been remiss in not talking
to the neighbors, and as reported to him, the developer was not interested in
any discussions if the residents were not in favor of his project.
Mr. Frear stated that he had spoken to a Mrs. Ament prior to the first continuance,
but no contact had been made since that time for the same reasons they were asking
for the continuance. It did not seem appropriate to do so until the escrow problem
was solved. They were prepared, however, to answer questions relative to technical
items on the projects.
The Mayor clarified that the strongest objection as presented in the testimony was
density.
Mr. Frear stated that their project was apparently being compared with the old
apartments to the north and northwest, and in actuality there was no comparison.
There were recreational facilities in their project in four separate areas, not
a swimming pool which experience had shown received little use, but the new
jacuzzi-hot tub concept and around each of these areas were proposed barbeques
and cabanas. He considered it doubtful that staff would approve a development
77-829
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
without recreational facilities and likewise it would not be good business
financially not to include such facilities. In fact, the jacuzzi-hot tub
concept was one of the major features of the sale.
Relative to owner commitment in the area, unless there were major financial
changes in the principals of Frost Construction, the proposed complex was to
be retained in the company's portfolio. Mr. Frear reiterated it was an excel-
lent project in an excellent area, so good it would not be offered for sale.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Frear indicated that although single-family
residences had been considered as a possible market, it was not explored in depth.
They looked at the General Plan and felt the apartment complex would be the most
appropriate use and a good buffer between single-family residential and commercial.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour stated that he shared the concern of the residents and people
who signed the petition. Relative to the traffic, he was very familiar with the
neighborhood and existing traffic problems. Because of the clog of traffic at
Euclid and La Palma, he maintained that much of the neighborhood to the north
would funnel through the existing tract of residential homes. He was concerned
that the traffic problem would only be compounded by the heavy density project.
He was inclined to favor either condominiums at 10 units to the acre or single-
family residence at 6 units to the acre which would better assist the environment
in this specific neighborhood as well as those to the south of La Palma. Although
that area was fairly well maintained, if they were not given a compatible type of
development that would insure pride of ownership and which catered to tenancy, he
contended it could turn into the type of problem as experienced in the Chevy Chase
area.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 77R-520 for adoption denying
Reclassification No. 76-77-50.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Anaheim used to be a
City of more home ownership than apartments, but the recent trend was a 50-50 ratio.
She did not consider that to be good for the City because it would attract a
transient type of resident. In the final analysis, the City would benefit from
more ownership in it.
Mayor Thom stated that although he was not convinced that apartments in the area
would be detrimental, approximately 29 units to the acre was too high and garden
units of approximately 18 units to the acre would ba preferable. He would not
react unfavorably to such a lower density development or condominiums or less as
suggested by Councilman Seymour but because of the potential impact on the proposed
high density development on the residents in the area, he would vote favorably on
the proposed resolution for denial.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject property will have
no significant effect on the environment and hereby declares subject property exempt
from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the basis that
there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
77-830
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
designates the subject property for general commercial and/or medium-density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental elements are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted
by the petitioner indicates no significant adverse environmental impacts. MOTION
CARRIED.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution denying Reclassification No.
76-77-50. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-520: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (76-77-50, Re-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-520 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1710: Application by David Doering,
to expand an existing cocktail lounge and dance hall on CG and Re-1200 zoned
property located at 1203 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-128, reported that
the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the
requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further recommended that Conditional
Use Permit No. 1710 be denied.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Donald L. Shafer, 1023 West Lincoln, proprietor of the Marquis Cocktail Lounge,
first stated that relative to the past bad reputation of the cocktail lounge, he
wanted it understood that he had nothing to do witP it and had done everything
possible to clean it up. What happened prior to his taking over should have no
bearing on him. He also had no intentions of expanding into the vacant restaurant
(Billitos) abutting the Marquis since it did not belong to him. It was going to
be rented to someone by the owner, David Doering. He also stated he had cleaned
up the area by the back wall as a result of objections from people on Diamond Street.
He stressed that his main purpose was to become a business in the City of Anaheim.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Shafer stated that Mr. Doering was the owner of
the property in question, but he (Shafer) was leasing it from him under a 20-year
lease.
77-831
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour wanted to know whether or not the lease was assignable and if,
in fact, it could be sold to someone else or back to Mr. Doering.
Mr. Shafer explained that a stipulation made by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board (ABC) when he bought the cocktail lounge was that Mr. Doering could not
obtain a Liquor License again because he could not get ABC approval.
Councilman Seymour, however, clarified that he was trying to ascertain if both
Mr. Doering and himself (Shafer) would agree, (1) could the lease be cancelled,
or (2) could the lease be assigned to a third party.
Mr. Shafer indicated he would have to contact his attorney since he did not know
the answer to the questions posed.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Margaret Sullivan, 1122 Diamond Street, who lived around the corner and to
the rear of the existing cocktail lounge, questioned where the proposed dance
hall was going to be since, as far as she could determine, the expansion had
already occurred approximately one and a half years prior when a building was
added to the Marquis Lounge without notification of the surrounding neighbors.
In her opinion, there was no room for dancing in the existing extension to the
lounge.
Further discussion followed at the conclusion of which, Miss Santalahti explained
that, being a commercial building, permits could have legally been obtained to ex-
pand the existing legal use, but expansion of a cocktail lounge always required a
conditional use permit. It was her understanding that the addition referred to by
Mrs. Sullivan was made legally. However, when the City was subsequently approached
for some other reason, it came to staff's attention that an illegal expansion had
been made on the cocktail lounge.
The Mayor clarified that it was perfectly legal to build an addition to the existing
building, but not legal to expand the use of the cocktail lounge into it without
permission.
In concluding, Mrs. Sullivan stated her objection to the granting of Conditional
Use Permit No. 1710 and contended that what the neighborhood wanted was peace and
quiet and not a cocktail lounge or a dance hall.
Mr. Shafer emphasized that he had no intention of expanding into the adjacent and
now vacant Billitos Restaurant and further was concerned that he was paying rent
for square footage on the back of his building which presently he could not use.
He also reiterated that he merely wanted to be a businessman in the City of Anaheim.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the
Planning Director that the proposed activity falls with the definition of Section 3.01,~
Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental
impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-521 for adoption denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 1710. Refer to Resolution Book.
77-832
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-521: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1710.
Roll Call Vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-521 duly passed and adopted.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST REALTY COMPANY: After recess, Chairman Thom called the Anaheim Redevelop-
ment Agency to order, all members being present. (4:12 P.M.)
A joint public hearing was held with the Redevelopment Agency on the proposed
participation agreement between the Agency and Pacific Southwest Realty Company
for sale of real property located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard within Redevelopment Project Alpha.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director, explained that the proposed agreement accom-
plished three basic things in a straightforward manner as outlined in his report
dated July 1, 1977 (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Agency Member Roth referred to a letter he received that morning from a concerned
citizen regarding the exterior of the structure (Security Pacific Bank) which was to
be built on the corner of Lincoln and Harbor. He questioned Mr. Priest as to
whether or not the proposed structure was at the point where precise plans were
available and, if not, how was it possible to know what the structure would look
like if such plans were not available.
Mr. Priest stated that precise plans were not available and one of the actions
before the Agency would be approval of the basic concept plan delineated in the
site plan which he presented to the Council. Both the Commission and the Council
would have two additional opportunities to review the plans before final approval.
He further explained that at last week's Commission meeting, a working model of'
the commercial building was presented and he suspected that having been observed,
it was viewed as the final design model and as a result was considered as such.
Chairman Thom asked that the letter to which Mr. Roth referred be kept on file with
the City and Agency Clerk as part of the record.
In answer to Agency Member Kott, Mr. Priest explained that the only transaction
involved in the exchange of land with Security Pacific Bank (SPB) was that SPB
owned certain property at a full site currently on Harbor Boulevard and the Re-
development Agency was purchasing that at fair appraised value. In turn, the
Agency was selling SPB a full site on the corner of Harbor and Lincoln. In reality,
it was a straight purchase of sale, but it was called an exchange for identification
purposes.
77-833
qity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Priest also clarified for Mr. Kott that although the proposed bank building
required 15 parking spaces in a design concept, Office Block A would contain
centralized parking and would be ample space for parking, but in this case not
all directly adjacent to the bank building.
Chairman Thom asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed partici-
pation agreement; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-522 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated July 1, 1977 from the Executive Director Norm Priest. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-522: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY
COMPANY; FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREUNDER
IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS
GOVERNING SUCH SALE; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SAID PARTICIPA-
TION AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-522 duly passed and adopted.
Agency Member Kaywood offered Resolution No. ARA77-52 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA77-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ON THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY COMPANY HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; APPROVING
AND ADOPTING SAID NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND FINDING THAT SAID PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
AGENCY MEMBERS: None
AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA77-52 duly passed and adopted.
Chairman Thom offered Resolution No. ARA77-53 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
77-834
Cit~....Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA77-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE; APPROVING THE SALE OF SAID
PROPERTY TO PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REALTY COMPANY; APPROVING THE PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID PARTICIPA-
TION AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA77-53 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Agency Member Thom, seconded by Agency Member Seymour, basic concept
drawing, Exhibit A, with subsequent submittal of specific plans was approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Agency Member Thom, seconded by Agency Member Seymour, Acquisition
Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Pacifi~ Southwest Realty
Company ($483,750) was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Agency Member Kaywood, seconded by Agency Member Thom, Acquisition
Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Security Pacific National
Bank for fixtures and equipment ($74,235) was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Agency Member Seymour, seconded by Agency Member Thom, Lease of
Exchange Parcels Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Pacific
Southwest Realty was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Agency Member Seymour, seconded by Agency Member Kaywood, lease of
relocation facility--Non-Residential Rental Agreement--between the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and Pacific Southwest Realty at 318 West Lincoln Avenue
was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Kaywood moved to adjourn. Agency Member Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 4:25 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1681~ AMENDMENT TO RESOIUTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-523 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-523: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-199 GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1681, NUNC
PRO TUNC.
77-835
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-523 duly passed and adopted.
123: RENTAL OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE, EL CAMINO BANK BUILDING:
Councilman
Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-524 for adoption as recommended in memorandum
dated July 13, 1977 from the Assistant City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-524: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXCUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Anaheim Redevelopment Agency)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-524 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Thom, Mr. Dirk R. Bode was appointed to the Project Area
Committee to fill the unexpired term of Jess Payan ending June 30, 1978. MOTION
CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, appointment to the
Project Area Committee to fill the unexpired term of Gant Eichrodt was continued
for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
173: BUS SHELTER PROPOSAL~ SHELTERTOP~ INC.: Mr. Don Lacavoli, President of
Sheltertop, Inc., explained that his company was offering a comprehensive pro-
gram on bus shelters for the City of Anaheim at no cost to the taxpayer providing
construction, maintenance, free advertising space on the interior of the shelter,
income for the City and many other bene{its. A~ter construction o{ the shelters,
they would not only support the program with maintenance and emergency repair
service, but also work closely with the City and the Orange County Transit District
(OCTD) to assure the program continued to be approved by the residents of the City.
Their income on the bus shelters would be derived from advertisers. A detailed
and comprehensive report outlining their proposal had previously been submitted
to the Council dated July 19, 1977 and letter dated July 13, 1977 (on file in the
City Clerk's Office) which included printed photographs of the proposed locations,
artist renderings of the shelters, and the tentative agreement. Mr. Lacavoli
then introduced Mr. James Dunlap of J. Russell Dunlap Advertising.
Mr. Dunlap presented a scale rendering of the proposed shelter to give an idea of
the type of advertising they were seeking and which they felt would be most amenable
to the residents and businesses in the City. The four exterior back-lighted panels
providing 96 square feet of space would be used for major commercial advertising,
but the inside panels would afford free advertising on a one third each basis for
77-836
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 19772 1:30 P.M.
the City, Transit District and a nationally recognized charitable organization.
Mr. Dunlap also explained for Councilman Kott that their marketing concept called
for selling strictly to major advertisers for the entire shelter and the sides
would not be splitup to accommodate several advertisers. The maximum amount of
ads would be four (one for each side) but they preferred not to have to use that
concept.
Mr. Lacavoli explained they were prepared to construct one shelter to give the
Council an opportunity to see an actual shelter and to receive input from residents
and businesses. Since it was a large investment, they wanted an exclusive agreement
with the City for protection of such an investment.
Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Planning Director, referred to a staff report dated
July 13, 1977 outlining the subsequent action taken after the meeting of July 5,
1977 wherein staff was directed to request of Sheltertop further data concerning
their bus shelter proposal. Mr. Schwartze explained this was Sheltertop's first
venture in constructing a shelter which would be a learning experience both for
them and staff. Coordination with the Traffic Engineer was necessary and the
City's sign code, as well as exclusive agreement with Bench Ads would have to
be modified. If the Council was interested in pursuing the matter, staff could
provide all the data relative to the steps necessary to pursue the program and
could coordinate the construction of a unit for a pilot program.
The Mayor stated he was interested in pursuing the concept, but was not certain
that construction of a unit should be pursued until all legal paths were cleared
for such a pilot program.
Councilman Seymour stated he had given serious thought to the matter and although
he considered it to be a fine proposal, he was astounded that the Council was
seriously considering such a miscarriage of the Council's philosophical belief of
control signing in the City of Anaheim. In his opinion, the City was trading their
principles and philosophies for $50 a month each and some free advertising. He
could not even begin to support such a proposal.
The Mayor stated he considered the proposal interesting enough to pursue on a
regulated basis in some areas of the City.
Councilman Roth stated he would like to see the proposal proceed after ascertaining
the legal ramifications and contingent upon one shelter being built.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be opposed to modifying the Sign Ordinance
before finding out what the public reaction would be, but felt shelters could
provide incentives for increased use of public tramsit.
Further discussion followed with Mr. Lacavoli relative to the existing agreement
the City had with Bench Ads. He also explained in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood,
in some instances, there would be a combination of ads both on the existing Bench
Ad bench and the Sheltertop. Sheltertop's benches would not contain advertising
and they did not ever intend for them to do so. Their purpose was to obtain an
exclusive franchise on bus shelters with advertising, not an exclusive for adver-
tising in Anaheim.
77-837
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott asked staff if, instead of changing the City's present Sign
Ordinance, it could merely exclude bus shelters.
Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry explained that an amendment to the ordinance
would be required as well as an amendment to the franchise with Bench Ads.
Councilman Seymour suggested that since the objective was to provide a bus shelter
to protect people from the weather and sun, it would be appropriate to obtain a
rough cost estimate per bench stop for a minimum-type shelter rather than creating
a billboard city.
Mayor Thom stated that what appealed to the Council in the proposal was the oppor-
tunity to obtain a good bus shelter at no cost.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, staff was instructed to
submit in three weeks a report on the legal aspects if shelters were authorized and
to prepare the necessary documentation for a pilot shelter to be built at Sheltertop's
expense and cost of removal for Council review and community input. Councilman
Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
135: REASSIGNMENT OF H. G. "DAD" MILLER CONCESSION CONTRACT: Mr. Tom Liegler,
Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, stated that in accordance with Council's
direction, staff met with the Stoops and their Attorney Mr. Ricks, (see minutes of
July 12, 1977) the Ryans, and a Mr. Germano, Sales Agent for the transaction. In
order to report the meeting fairly, he felt the Council should also be informed of
the tenure of the discussion. Staff was given an indication that the City had been
unfair in various transactions that had taken place over the past few months along
with accusations that the City was dragging its feet. Concerns were also expressed
that he (Liegler) had friends or relatives to put into the role as concessionaire
of the Golf Course. He assured the Council that this was not so. It appeared to
him that the parties involved did not understand the normal required City procedures
relating to a transaction of the type under consideration and thus, he tried to ex-
plain the procedure that had to be followed. Nothing further was resolved at the
meeting other than a clarification of the same conditions recommended by staff and
submitted at the meeting of July 12, 1977. However, facts were gathered as requested
of actual purchase prices involved in reassigning the agreement. Regarding Mr. Rach,
Mr. Liegler could not be precise in ascertaining what he originally paid because he
was the first concessionaire and the negotiation between Rach and the City was based
upon a percentage to the City for his investment in equipment and ability. Mr. Rach
then sold the assignment of his original contract with City Council approval to the
Stoops for $65,000 including inventory.
Relative to the proposed purchase price from the Stoops to the Ryans, the figure
seemed to differ from time to time. On May 16, 1977 when staff was first informed
that the Stoops were proposing to sell to the Ryans, the total was $83,000. At the
June 23, 1977 meeting with the Golf Commission, it was $68,000 and yesterday, July 8,
1977, the agreed upon price was $75,000, including inventory. After the meeting,
however, the parties involved met and agreed to $57,000, including inventory, and that--
was the price at the moment.
Mr. Liegler then reiterated the four stipulations recommended by staff in which the
City Attorney concurred. He also emphasized the key item was the present term of
77-838
~City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
the agreement, expiring June 30, 1979, which was unacceptable to the Ryans.
They wanted complete assurance that they would get an extension. It was ex-
pressed to the Ryans and their agents that when it came time for contractual
renewal, there was no time in the past that the Council had not renegotiated
terms with anyone who was doing a good job and where both parties were satisfied.
Apparently there was some misunderstanding that such an extension would be
guaranteed and Mr. Liegler assured the Council that was not the case. The decision
was whether or not the Ryans wished to take over the assignment of the original
contract under the conditions recommended.
Councilman Roth questioned whether the City had elaborate plans for mid-1979 to
change the clubhouse at the golf course, and if so, would they be affected
by extending the contract. Further, he reiterated his concern over the provision
in the contract making it transferable, thus attributing to it market value causing
an acceleration of price. He wanted the Council to have the prerogative of
selecting a potential lessee directly.
Mr. Liegler explained that the food and beverage facility at the "Dad" Miller Golf
Course was 14 years old. Although funding was not presently available to do so, at
the end of the present agreement (June 30, 1979) plans were to enlarge the clubhouse
and food and beverage facilities and buy new equipment. In his opinion, the conces-
sionaire would be the person to amortize new equipment over a long period of time
which was a normal procedure. The City would have what they needed to serve golfers
and the concessionaire would have a long-term contract with a percentage to be
negotiated with the City. The Ryans indicated at the time of the renegotiation they
should be the concessionaire. However, Mr. Liegler explained that he could not make
that decision, and the City Council would not be in a position to do so at this
point. The only assurance he could give was that the City always looked favorably
upon past good performance.
Relative to the transferable clause in the present agreement, Mr. Lowry stated that
it could be eliminated when a new contract was drawn in 1979, but it could not be
changed in the existing contract.
Further discussion followed between Council and staff relative to the purchase of
inventory. The Mayor clarified, however, that the only matter before the Council was
the reassignment of the original contract.
Mr. Harold Ryan, 7300 Eighth Street, Buena Park, reiterated the concern expressed
at the prior meeting relative to the short period of time remaining in the pre~ent
contract. Since he could not be assured of a long-term arrangement, he reaffirmed
his previous rejection of the proposed reassignment.
Mr. Robert Ricks, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Leland Stoops, stated that the
Stoops were only requesting an opportunity to leave the business with some return
for what they put into it and if the additional period of time was granted, the sale
would materialize. He was at a loss to know why the Ryans could not have a new con-
tract since such arrangements had been made in the past with other parties.
The Mayor explained that the City would first have to terminate the existing agree-
ment, renegotiate with the Ryans and, as well, receive proposals from other interested
parties.
77-839
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Further discussion followed between Mr. Ricks and Councilman Seymour regarding
the effect the length of the contract had on the purchase price.
Mr. Liegler then explained for Councilman Kott some of the possible consequences
that could occur if the Council did not approve the proposed reassignment. In
concluding, however, Mr. Liegler stated that his office had received two calls
from people interested in the food and beverage concession and urged the Stoops,
if the Ryans were not satisfied, to work out agreements with either of the two and
submit them back to Council to see if one or the other was acceptable. As Mr. Talley
had stated, a more ideal solution would be to go out to public bid and the City
perhaps could do even better.
Mr. Ricks clarified that if the Ryans refused the terms of the reassignment the
Stoops intended to maintain the business at the golf course.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Council took no
action on the reassignment of the H. G. "Dad" Miller concession contract and
instructed staff to remove the item from the agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT - BID NO. 3268: In answer to
Councilman Kott, City Manager Talley explained that the low bids covering Item
Nos. 2 and 15, of the subject bid, could not meet City specifications as to struc-
ture and design.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (5:25 P.M.)
Mr. Lewis Keller, Buyer, Purchasing Division of the Finance Department, stated that
the equipment bid by the low bidder on Item 2 did not begin to meet specifications
and on Item 15, two units from the low bidder would be required to meet specifica-
tions instead of one, and the Parks and Recreation Department did not have the space
to handle two units.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the best bids of
Game Time, Inc., Item No. 2, and Western Wood, Item No. 15 were accepted and
purchases authorized in the amounts of $5,493.98 and $2,968, respectively, including
tax, as recon~nended in memorandum dated July 12, 1977 from the Purchasing Division.
Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS - UNIFICATION CHURCH: On motion
by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Application by the Unification
Church for solicitation of donations in commercial and business areas and minimal
residential door-to-door, from July 20 through September 18, 1977 was denied.
Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Karen Clark, Missionary from the Unification Church, 5571 Huntington Drive, Los
Angeles, stated that when the previous application was denied, she contacted various
City departments to determine the reasons therefor and she was still trying to
ascertain the reasons.
77-840
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Thom explained that it was an unstated policy of the Council that requests
for solicitation on a door-to-door basis from organizations not headquartered
within the City were usually denied. He further explained that the Council was
frequently the recipient of complaints from constituents relative to people knocking
on their doors and asking for donations from anyone outside
of the City because they were bothered enough with organizations within the City.
Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber. (5:30 P.M.)
Ms. Clark stated that the City ordinance did not specify religious organizations,
but charitable only, and theirs was distinctly a religious one. Part of their
religious belief and practice was to fundraise, and if they were being denied a
permit, in reality, it was a denial of the right of freedom of religion. The
money collected was a means of support and used strictly for religious purposes,
and literature was also distributed at the same time.
The Mayor explained that if they were going door-to-door for religious purposes,
that was an entirely different matter. No one could stop them from so doing and
no permit was necessary. If they were going door-to-door for non-religious purposes,
however, the request would be denied.
Further discussion followed between Council and staff wherein Assistant City Attorney
Frank Lowry clarified that donations were considered an incidental use to religious
purposes and that residents had the right to post property against trespassers, but
there was no way of stopping someone from ringing a doorbell.
Upon the request of Ms. Clark for further clarification, the Mayor reiterated that
if the organization was going door-to-door for religious purposes, no permit was
necessary in the City of Anaheim and such a right was provided for in the Constitu-
tion. If not for religious purposes but merely to solicit donations, then an
application was necessary, and the Council could either approve or disapprove it.
Mr. Lowry confirmed the Mayor's statement from a legal standpoint. Relative to
Ms. Clark's request as to whether or not the City Attorney's Office had done any-
thing regarding the matter, Mr. Lowry explained that his office filed a statement
indicating there was no objection in granting a solicitation permit and another
statement that if the organization was a religious one going door-to-door, the
City Attorney's Office again had no objection and no permit was necessary regard-
less of where the funds were used.
114 AND 163: ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST FOR DEVELOPERS FEE: The Mayor
asked if the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) had anything
further to add to their report dated June 30, 1977 relative to the subject fees.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Secretary of HACMAC, explained that the Committee
spent a great deal of time on the matter and at the several meetings they had with
the School District, were unable to obtain the information they needed. The main
consideration was to try and get some data they could use which was favorable to
the housing of school students in the Canyon. Added to this was the fact that con-
struction of the Anaheim Hills Elementary School was stopped even though there was
enough money in the bank at the start of the project. They were told by the School
District they could not complete the school because EDA did not give them the million
dollars they needed. HACMAC considered it a ploy to get additional money to build
another school and OUSD was using Anaheim Hills for their request.
77-841
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Hail further stated that privately, District personnel, specifically George
Simpson, Business Manager of the Orange Uniifed School Distrct (OUSD) told her
and other members of HACMAC they had no intention of resuming construction of
the school until they brought the City of Anaheim to its knees over the developers'
fee. The residents were concerned because their children would have to be bussed
out of the Canyon since the school would not be completed regardless of the contract
between the City, Anaheim Hills, and OUSD as part of an out-of court settlement,
assuring the school would be opened in September 1977. She pointed out that although
she knew members of the Orange Chamber of Commerce, they did not know the Chamber
had endorsed the adoption of legislation to require all developers to'comply with the
OUSD's fee policy for new school construction in their letter dated June 22, 1977.
Also, Dr. Donald Ingwerson, Superintendent of the Orange Unified School District, and
Bert Skiles, were both active Board Members of the Orange Chamber of Commerce,
Skiles being President of the Board. The HACMAC recommendation of no fee was based
on a number of things which Mrs. Hall continued to explain. HACMAC's final recom-
mendation that no developers fee be paid was finally based upon the fact that there
was no way for the Committee to be objective in ascertaining that a problem did
actually exist as the School District indicated.
Councilman Seymour interjected that the City should perhaps consider legal action
to enforce the three-way agreement to settle the policy; Mrs. Hall indicated that
HACMAC would favor such action.
Mr. John Rau, 6432 Via Estrada, Member of HACMAC and also consultant to the City
relative to growth and development in the Santa Ana Canyon through Ultrasystems,
spoke to the matter. First speaking as a HACMAC Member he confirmed they had not
seen sufficient or adequate evidence to support the position that the City should
enter into an agreement with the OUSD personnel to enforce an agreement for fees
on development as it occurred in the Canyon area. Speaking as a consultant for
Anaheim, Mr. Rau explained that based on assumed growth of configuration 2-B develop-
ment pattern in the Canyon area, development today was providing sufficient revenues
to pay for schools anywhere within the boundaries of the School District and, according
to projections, for the next 25 years and certainly within the 5-year short-term.
However, it was not known whether development was really occurring according to con-
figuration 2-B, and it could be that more of a burden was being imposed on the School
District than they could handle. '
Mr. Rau then further briefed the Council on other facets of the study being conducted
as well as figures given by the School District in terms of assessing $800 per student
or housing unit which, in the final analysis, was considered too unrealistic. As the
City's consultant, and in light of the numbers available, a school fee assessed on
developers was not necessary in the Canyon area.
Another concern was the fact that once a Joint Powers Agreement of the type requested
was entered into, there was no guarantee the money would ever come back to Anaheim
Hills or the Santa Ana Canyon area. He emphasized the City must maintain control
over such funds.
Councilman Roth interjected that as a result of meeting with the Superintendent
of OUSD and others in the District since he and Councilman Kott were appointed
to do so, he was personally convinced that there was no justification for a
developers' fee.
77-842
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott then gave a chronological explanation of what had occurred since
March 1977 to the present, relative to the whole question starting with a letter
dated March 28, 1977 from Dr. Ingwerson who stated that, in his opinion, they
needed more than a $500 per student development fee and were going to raise the
amount to $800 and requested a meeting. Councilman Kott then briefed the Council
on the subsequent meeting that took place in April 1977 where questions were
posed by him (Kott) that were never answered, as well as other activities up through
May 1977 at which time he asked Assistant Planning DirectOr, Phil Schwartze to
evaluate the proposal from the OUSD. Mr. Schwartze did so and suggested alternatives
to funding instead of the proposed developers' fee.
In concluding, Councilman Kott stated that no further communication had been received
from the OUSD informing the City what its percentage was in terms of students, cost
or the amount already put into the fund. Until they provided that information or
could justify their request, he recommended that the Council take no further action
relative to a proposed developers' fee, or summarily deny the request. Further, it
appeared that the Orange Chamber of Commerce was being run by the OUSD.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that four years prior she asked the Business Manager
of the OUSD the amount of revenue coming in from Anaheim and never received an answer.
At a joint meeting with the School Board and the administration a year later, she
asked how many other districts had donated school sites, and finally it was ascertained
that Anaheim was the only one who had done so. She then elaborated on the contribu-
tions made by Anaheim, representing a considerable amount of money. As soon as other·
districts contributed accordingly, it would then be fair to discuss further steps
that might be taken. She wanted answers and figures provided by the OUSD as requested
without having to "beat down the doors."
Councilman Roth stated that in the meeting with the OUSD, the representative pressed
Councilman Kott and himself as to what direction they thought the Anaheim City Council
would take. He explained there was no way they (Roth and Kott) would be able to
express the Council's sentiment without first presenting their case to HACMAC for
subsequent submittal to and decision making by the Council.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of the
Orange Unified School District for adoption of legislation by the City of Anaheim
to require developers to comply with the District's fee policy for new school
construction was denied. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Attorney was
directed to investigate the settlement agreement between the Orange Unified School
District and the City of Anaheim to determine whether or not OUSD was in compliance
to the terms of the agreement. MOTION CARRIED.
105: POLICY CLARIFICATION - HACMAC MEMBERSHIP: By general Council consent, it was
confirmed that any member of the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC)
must be a resident of Anaheim. The Mayor further requested that the current membership
be checked as to their legal residences.
77-843
C__ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July. 19, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Mike Pollak for reimbursement for expenses incurred purport-
edly as a result of building permit requirements.
b. Claim submitted by Clyde Pridgeon for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a power failure on or about May 11, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Carol Jean Carlos for personal damages purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by an Anaheim Police Officer on or about April 15, 1977.
d. Claim submitted by Joel Blair Dickey, a minor, by Edna M. Dickey, his Guardian
ad Litem, and Edna M. Dickey, individually, for personal damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of the death and lost earnings of claimants' father and husband
caused by auto accident on Lincoln near Sunkist on or about April 9, 1977.
e. Claim submitted by Millard Earl Christian for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a slip and fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about
May 17, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed.
a. 105:
b. 105:
c. 105:
d. 105:
Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of June 16, 1977.
Project Area Committee - Minutes of June 28 and July 5, 1977.
Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of June 28, 1977.
Community Services Board - Minutes of June 23, 1977.
e. 175: Monthly report for May, 1977 - Water Division.
f. 107: Monthly report for June, 1977 - Building Division.
g. 144: County of Orange - Grand Jury Report 1976-77.
3. 108: DINNER DANCING PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit to allow dancing Sunday through Saturday at
Dandel's Restaurant, 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard, from 7:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M.
(Leonard Serotsky, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
77-844
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
147: TRANSFER STATIONS AND LANDFILLS: Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether
or not the Director of Public Works had investigated the matter relative to the
need for purchase of and budget for equipment urgently needed at the transfer
stations and landfills as outlined in Garden Grove's Sanitary District Resolution
No. 2979 to the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
City Manager Talley stated that the Public Works Director advised him that the
City should support the resolution in that the purchase of new equipment would
allow the County to handle a larger percentage of waste collection throughout the
County. If that happened, it would mean much less use of a franchised rubbish
collector who charged more than similar County services. The long-range effect
would be to reduce rubbish collection costs to the County and subsequently Anaheim
residents.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, staff was directed
to support Resolution No. 2979 from the Garden Grove Sanitary District in the most
appropriate manner. MOTION CARRIED.
174.123: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 902: Councilman Kott questioned the
City Manager as to what the extra cost of the EDA project might be and where the
money would come from to cover such costs.
Mr. Talley explained that when bids were received on the project, they were found
to be under budget, therefore, since Barrier Free Anaheim included only certain
areas of the City and then it was determined the whole City could be covered, 21
additional access ramps at $400 per unit were included for the additional $8,400.
The City thus spent right up to the amount given in the Federal Grant; the lower
the bid price per unit, the more ramps were included.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Change Order
No. 2 in the amount of $8,389.50, N-D-L Construction, Contractor (EDA Project
No. 07-51-01053) was approved, bringing the original contract price to $123,806.50,
as recommended in memorandum dated July 13 1977 from the City Engineer. MOTION
CARRIED. '
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 77R-525 through
77R-528, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports recommendations
and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-525: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Dunn Properties
Corporation; Dunn Properties Corporation; Mama Cozza's Italian Restaurant, Inc.;
Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc.; Winston J. Geiger, et ux.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-526: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MOHLER DRIVE STREET
IMPROVEMENT, S/O SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, FISCAL YEAR 1977-78,
PROJECT ACCOUNT NOS. 12-4309-706-16-1001 & 12-4309-708-16-1002; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF;
AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened August 18, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
77-845
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-527: 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: GAYMONT STORM DRAIN, BALL ROAD
TO ROME AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 899, EDA PROJECT NO.
075101051. (City Construction Company)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-528: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENTS. (Equestrian Trails - Tract 9333) (76-21A) (Public Hearing August 9,
1977, 3:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-525 through 77R-528, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 9425: Developer, Influential Homes Company of Irvine;
Tract located at the southeast corner of Sunkist Street and Ball Road, containing
106 RS-5000 proposed zoned lots.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Assistant City Attorney LOwry confirmed that
the subject area was one previously zoned industrial.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon stated that she would then vote "No."
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivision,
together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's
General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 9425, as recommended
by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 13, 1977. Councilwoman Kaywood
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
170: ORDINANCE NO. 3737: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3737 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3737: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 17.08,
TITLE 17, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 17.08.071 RELATING TO
WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP REQUIREMENTS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3737 duly passed and adopted.
77-846
C_ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3738: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3738 for adoption
Refer to Resolution Book. '
ORDINANCE NO. 3738: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-24, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3738 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3739 AND 3740: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3739
and 3740 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3739: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-28, RS-HS-22,000 Tract
No. 7587) ,
ORDINANCE NO. 3740: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-17, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3739 and 3740 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3742: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3742 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3742: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(79), ML)
105: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETINGS: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that recent
Redevelopment Commission meetings were Of short duration and asked staff to solicit
the Commission's recommendations relative to the possibility of meeting every other
week instead of the present weekly basis.
148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETING: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the
next League of California Cities meeting would be held on Thursday evening, July 21,
1977, in Fullerton, and since she was attending, she questioned whether Anaheim was
still a member.
Mr. Talley stated that all cities were still considered members until the dues
structure controversy was reconciled.
77-847
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 26, 1977,
at 10:30 A.M. in the Management Control Center to meet with the Orange County
Human Relations Commission. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:10 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK