1977/08/02 77-888
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR: Phil Schwartze
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"Sarah Fay Pearson Day" - August 2, 1977
The proclamation was received by Mrs. Pearson who expressed her appreciation over
the thoughtfulness in celebrating her longevity as Chairwoman and Member of the
Mother Colony House Advisory Board since May 11, 1954. She also expressed her
earnest hope that the money and leadership would be found to realize the goal of
an appropriate museum for Anaheim's unique heritage and dynamic history.
119: CERTIFICATES FOR MERITORIOUS ACHIEVEMENT: The Mayor presented Certificates
for Meritorious Achievement to the following three employees who, as a result of
their creativity, devised a plan enabling the saving of substantial sums of money
for the City: City Clerk Linda Roberts, Planning Director Ron Thompson, and
Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in light of the foregoing presentations, she hoped
for a renewal of interest or increase in the City's Bridge to Betterment Program to
encourage employees to contribute their ideas and suggestions.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, minutes
of the adjourned regular meetings held May 26 and 31, and June 29, 1977 were approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $932,958.32, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
77-889
_C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
174.123: WILLIAM TAPIA, YOUTH MURALS PROJECT (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM): Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-542 for adoption, approving
an agreement with William Tapia for instructional services, to terminate September 16,
1977, as recommended in memorandum dated July 25, 1977 from the Executive Director of
Community Development, Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-542: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
(William Tapia)
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-542 duly passed and adopted.
150: NEJEDLY-HART STATE BOND ACT OF 1976: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Kott, the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department
was authorized to file with the County of Orange under the Nejedly-Hart State
Bond Act of 1976 on a 50 percent matching fund basis for the fiscal year 1978-79
funding as recommended in memorandum dated July 27, 1977 from the Parks, Recrea-
tion and the Arts Director, James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
123: GENERAL MEDICAL CENTERS HEALTH PLAN AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 77R-543 for adoption, authorizing an amendment to correct
the Master Group agreement number to 6628, as recommended in memorandum dated
July 27, 1977 from Personnel Director, Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-543: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER GROUP AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND GENERAL MEDICAL CENTERS HEALTH PLAN, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID 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-543 duly passed and adopted.
173: BUS SHELTER PROPOSAL, TR~SIT SHELTERS OF AMERICA, INC. (TSA): Mr. Robert
Birdsall, Assistant to the President of Transit Shelters of America, John Hancock
Center, Chicago, Illinois, briefed the Council on data contained in letter dated
July 22, 1977 and letter dated July 29, 1977 (A through H) which included a compre-
hensive report outlining in detail his company's proposal for placing bus shelters
in the City of Anaheim (letters and proposal on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Mr. Birdsall also presented a scale model of the shelter; the actual shelter being
15 feet long, 9 feet high and 5 feet in depth and available in two varieties, one
for a large city as shown in the model and a smaller version. He then enumerated
77-890
C__ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
the types of materials utilized in the structure of the shelter, its various
safety features and insurance coverage provided, as well as a hold harmless agree-
ment for the City in connection with accidents. The shelter was offered to cities
free of charge and TSA paid for all costs connected with installation, maintenance,
construction and electricity, with maintenance provided on a twice weekly basis.
Cost of removal, should the City terminate a contract, would also be borne by TSA.
Mr. Birdsall stated that the Company's advertising policy maintained a ratio of
40 percent local advertising to 60 percent national, and the shelters were only
placed in commercial areas. Thus, they would not be able to provide t~hem at every
site where a bus stop existed. The City would receive a 5 percent commission on
TSA's gross advertising revenue and the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) would
also receive 5 percent. Therefore, their proposal represented no cost to the City
but yet would provide revenue and also, only local residents would be employed for
construction, installation and maintenance. Specific details were contained in the
aforementioned report.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Birdsall explained that approximately 175 units
were presently under construction as a result of contracts in progress and their
first prototype was in place.
Further discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Birdsall relative to terms
of the proposed contract regarding payment of commissions, installation of a shelter
on a trial basis, and inclusion of the OCTD in the overall scheme. Councilman Kott
was of the opinion that no other governmental agency should participate if they
were not providing any costs in terms of property and the like.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Birdsall stated that they had not yet investigated
the number of units that could be installed in the City and would not do so until
instructions were received from the Council since such study was very costly. Before
the Council would approve an agreement of any kind, TSA would make a presentation,
such as that of Sheltertop, giving the number of units and their locations.
Councilman Seymour stated that his concern with the Sheltertop proposal and their
overall plan was a sign proliferation and pollution. Thus, it was important for
him to know to what degree the City would be impacted by signing. Also, although
be was opposed to Sheltertop's concept, he indicated he might change his mind relative
to such proposals if shelters were installed on a limited basis and he had the oppor-
tunity to talk to some merchants and property owners who would be affected by the
signing to determine if they considered the proposal a good idea.
Mr. Birdsall stated that the TSA contract provided for veto power for any advertise-
ments they placed in the City and any advertising deemed unacceptable by the City
would be removed within 24 hours. Also, since the shelters were kept clean and would
be well maintained, no pollution factor would be involved.
In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Counci%man Kott, Mr.
Birdsall explained first that he had not yet been given the opportunity to pre-
sent his proposal to the OCTD and also, that the income derived from advertising
was dependent on the number of units; the more units, the greater the revenue de-
rived.
77-891
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked staff for a comparison of Sheltertop's proposal vs TSA
relative to total advertising coverage.
Assistant Planning Director, Phil Schwartze, explained that square footage was
approximately the same and revenue to the City was also in the same range. He
further explained that staff would be submitting an analysis of various items
that would have to be researched in order to institute a pilot project or a
permanent facility.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Birdsall stated that problems had not as
yet been experienced with the flat roofs used on the shelters. As suggested by
Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Birdsall stated that tilted roofs could cause some
design problems and they preferred the flat roof for its aesthetic value. Be-
cause it was 9 feet in height, it precluded the possibility of children climbing
on it, and any debris that might be thrown on the roof would be eliminated in
view of the regular maintenance program.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration
of bus shelter proposals was continued until staff submitted an in-depth compara-
tive analysis of each proposal. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour asked if staff was preparing numbers he had requested relative
to a minimal shelter if the City were to choose to provide the shelters, rather
than being part of an advertising sales campaign.
Mr. Schwartze explained that staff had prepared such an analysis several years
prior. He also explained that Federal Grant money was available to obtain "free"
shelters and the maintenance was determined to be $50 to $100 per month per shelter
on a design similar to that of the TSA proposal.
Discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Birdsall wherein Mr. Birdsall
further differentiated between the shelters provided by his company and the minimum
shelters about which Councilman Seymour was speaking.
Councilman Seymour contended that an elaborate shelter was unnecessary in California
but only needed for protection from sun and rain. If staff prepared figures that
reflected the cost of maintenance on a mimimum-type shelter to be $50 per month
per shelter, they would be speaking of a rather elaborate one.
Mr. Schwartze indicated that the shelters they were talking about cost approximately
$2,500 to $4,000 such as that installed at the Broadway Shopping Center, and in the
final analysis on an overall yearly basis, maintenance costs averaged out to $50
per month.
Councilman Seymour reiterated that what his request encompassed was the cost to
build and maintain a minimum-type shelter over a bus bench.
Mr. Schwartze indicated that information would be provided.
77-892
_City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
123 AND 175: SUNDESERT NUCLEAR PLANT, PLANNING AND FEASIBILTY STUDY AGREEMENT
(FIRST AMENDMENT): Councilman Seymour asked if the proposed amendment to the
subject agreement had been reviewed and recommended by the Public Utilities
Board.
Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt explained that he did not take the matter to the
Commission because it was simply providing for additional participants in the pro-
ject and would not affect the City's costs or participatiOn. He did not consider
it to be a controversial item. He would, however, take the matter to the Board
at their next meeting on Thursday, August 4, 1977 and report back in two weeks.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, consideration of
the first amendment to the Planning and Feasibility Study Agreement for the Sun-
desert Nuclear Plant was continued for two weeks for a report from the Public
Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED.
128: WRITE-OFF OF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976-77: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the write-off of certain uncollect-
ible accounts (Paramedic billings, Utilities accounts and miscellaneous charges)
for Fiscal Year 1976-77 was authorized as recommended in memorandum dated July 21,
1977 from Assistant City Manager. William T. Hopkins. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded
by Councilman Seymour, appointment to fill an unexpired term on the Project Area
Committee ending June 30, 1978 was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
123: LONG-RANGE ELECTRIC DEMAND AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION FORECASTS~ ECONOMIC SCIENCES
CORPORATION: (continued from July 12 and 26, 1977) Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 77R-544 for adoption as recommended by the Public Utilities Board.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-544: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC SCIENCES COR-
PORATION FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRICITY ENERGY AND
DEMAND FORECASTING MODELS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Kott and Thom
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-544 duly passed and adopted.
169: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 810 - ORANGETHORPE PARK STREET IMPROVEMENT: Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-545 for adoption awarding a contract in accor-
dance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
77-893
.City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-545: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: ORANGETHORPE PARK STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 810. (Fleming Engineering, Inc. of Cerritos, $84,098.50)
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-545 duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-32 - TERMINATION: Request by Mr. and Mrs. F. R. Hall,
for termination of Reclassification No. 76-77-32, proposed CL zoning to permit a
private school on property located at 1556 West Katella.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-546 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum received July 27, 1977 from the Planning Department, Zoning Division.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-546: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-32.
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-546 duly passed and adopted.
105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - EXTENSION OF TERM: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Roth, an extension of term of the Project Area Committee to
July 19, 1978 requested by William Woods, Chairman, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
127 AND 162: ACTIVITIES OF COUNCIL-APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS REI.ATING TO C.O.M.B.A.T.:
* "ROBERTS:
THOM:
BROWN:
THOM:
Item No. 6 is a request submitted by Mr. Fred Brown to address the Council
regarding activities of Council-appointed board members relating to
COMBAT.
Fast Freddie Brown. You ready, fast Freddie? Step forth and entertain
us. Let me entertain you. (singing)
Mr. Mayor, and Members of the Council, I have asked to address this
body and I understand that I have five minutes; and I would request
that my time be uninterrupted.
Well, why don't you just let us listen and see if we like the content,
and if we do we'll keep it going on for hours and hours, and if we ---
don't we'll cut it off.
* See Minutes of September 6, 1977 - Page 77-
77-894
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
THOM:
BROWN:
Thank you. A month ago an organization known as COMBAT surfaced
here in the City, and this organization, in its statement of reasons,
seeks to relieve the overburdened homeowner through a balanced and
more just form of taxation, i.e., a luxury tax on the entertainment
field, as I understand. My immediate concern, as a resident of the
City, is that the a ..... there is a conflicting interest going on with
the members of COMBAT and unofficial members of that organization.
Each member of COMBAT who has signed the Intent to Petition is
currently holding a rather high Council-appointed position within
the City. Their duties on various commissions, committees and
boards are one of relaying matters of economic growth, utility rates
and specific community needs to this body for policy implementation.
For example, Mrs. Janice Hall was appointed by the Council, was,
excuse me, appointed by Councilwoman Kaywood, to serve on the HACMAC
Committee on March 29, 1977. As a resident activist from the Canyon
Area, she has a direct link to the City Hall through her committee
association, and decisions on building and development of the East
Anaheim Area. Mrs. Hall is Chairperson of the organization known
as COMBAT.
Joseph White, who I'm sure all of you are familiar with, as I am --
I bought my first home from him -- (THOM: The great, white godfather)
was appointed by you, Mr. Mayor, (THOM: Right on.) to serve on the
Utilities Board on October 15th of last year. Mr. White has been a
long-time resident and realtor here in town, an earnest supporter of
yours, I might add, for Council and Mayor, (THOM: Right.) and one
who has sought to relieve the overburdened homeowners once before; and
on the last occasion I believe he failed. Mr. White is Vice-Chairman
of COMBAT.
Mr. Stuart Moss was appointed by you again, Mr. Mayor, to the Redevelop-
ment Commission on April 1st of 1975.
Incorrect, Mr. Brown, he was nominated by me, he was appointed by the
Council.
Excuse me. He was nominated by you and appointed by the Council to
the Redevelopment Commission. Mr. Moss lives in the East Anaheim
area and has a decision-making position on matters that the Commission
relays to City Hall for policy implementation.
Redevelopment in this town, as you've all known, has taken many faces
over the years, and Mr. Moss has been a proponent of increasing the
economic base to the central core, and reviews the companies who will
or will not stake their roots here in this particular center. King of
California Corporation, I believe, is an example of one who wanted to
build a theater complex within the Redevelopment area and the Redevelop-
ment Commission favored this particular project. If, in fact, the
project had gone through, they, too, would be subject to this proposed
tax. Mr. Moss is Treasurer of COMBAT.
Last, but not least, Mrs. Mary Dinndorf was appointed by you, Mr. Kott,
I believe, excuse me -- nominated and appointed by the Council
77-895
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
THOM:
BROWN:
THOM:
BROWN:
THOM:
BROWN:
THOM:
BROWN:
(THOM: Right.) nominated by Mr. Kott, appointed by the Council to
serve on the Redevelopment Commission on June 29th of last year.
She's a resident of the Anaheim Hills area, one who has in the past
sought to slow and even stop development out in that area. Now, by
her very nature (THOM: In the Santa Aha Canyon area) -- excuse me --
now by the very nature of her position she is moot on this particular
point. Mrs. Dinndorf is Secretary of the COMBAT organization and a
long-time supporter of members of the Council.
Right.
What is even more ludicrous to me is that these ..... what is more
ludicrous to me is than these particular people calling themselves
concerned citizens seeking property tax relief, is that you, Mr.
Mayor, are quoted as saying you welcome this as a grass roots effort
coming from the community.
That is correct, I did...
It is rather evident to me and to others, I believe, that your defini-
tion of grass roots is a group of five, a select five I may add. I
think at this point it is also rather important to note that you, Mr.
Mayor, have, in the past, held meetings with two members of the
COMBAT committee in a local restaurant on Saturday mornings; the sub-
ject of these meetings is not known to me, nor does it really matter.
What is important is that your position on the tax is known and has
been known for a long time.
Right.
I charge, Mr. Mayor, that your office is actually the seat of the
COMBAT brigade and that you merely hold an unnamed position in this
grass roots efforts. (THOM: Freddie, I hate to tell .... ) I
wholeheartedly, if you wouldn't mine, Mr. Mayor, I still have a
couple minutes left...
I do mind because your charge is inaccurate and I'd just like the
record to reflect that your alleagtion -- I think it's better put
as an allegation -- is an inaccurate one. You're certainly welcome
to make it. I just want it clarified that it's not true and is merely
supposition on your part.
I wholeheartedly urge that this body demand the resignation of the
individuals on the COMBAT immediately. (THOM: Laughter) for the
conflict of interest and the close ties to City Hall. I further
urge that this body, in it's official capacity, inform the public
as soon as possible that for the last two decades our tax dollars
have not gone to better the community but have, in fact, been di-
verted to the entertainment areas of the city, as the COMBAT organi-
zation has claimed. If the public is going to vote on an issue that
will, in fact, cost them money, by God they should be told what its
implications are; and what better place to begin than to start here.
If you, as the elected officials, are not willing to speak out in
public and inform your constituents and those who did not, perhaps,
vote for you, of this particular farcical effort to reduce taxes in
77-896
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
BROWN:
THOM:
BROWN:
THOM:
SEYMOUR:
one hand and increase them in another by taxing a particular
area of this community, then I, as an individual, don't feel
you deserve to serve the needs of this particular city or any
other city that you may choose. I thank you for your time, and
I'll be more than happy to stand here and answer any questions
you might have.
Don't have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
I would to make one comment. I was...I don't know whether you'd
call it an accusation...it is true that I did appoint Jan Hall to
the HACMAC Committee which was prior to anything of this COMBAT
ever surfacing; it's also true that Mrs. Hall has never called me,
never discussed it with me, there's been absolutely no communication
between the two of us, to my very great disappointment, and the HACMAC
Committee appointment had nothing to do with COMBAT and still has
nothing to do with it.
That's fine, Mrs. Kaywood.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Thank you.
You betcha. Next item, please.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment relative to (THOM: Sure.)
some of the remarks of Mr. Brown, rather than just moving on to the
next item. First of all, relative to you request and demand of resig-
nation, I don't feel that an appointed individual in the city serving
one commission or another commission .... the fact that they accept that
responsibility and 99% of them accept it without pay and without a
great deal of glamour or anything else, it's just blood, sweat and
tears that they put in on that job the fact that they accept such a
position, in my opinion, should not preclude them the opportunity
to involve themselves in the community in whichever way they might
feel necessary as a private citizen. Therefore, in my opinion, Fred,
I think your request for a demand for resignation is -- if it were
carried through, and I won't support it -- if it were carried through,
it would tend to set a precedent thereby gagging whatever people are
appointed to commissions. The people that I, personally, appoint to
commissions I like to see that they have total and complete freedom to
express themselves in any way they feel is in the best interests of the
city, as citizens and, therefore, I couldn't go for any gagging-type
precedent setting. Relative to the tax itself and the efforts of
COMBAT, I'd like the record to show, and I'd like you to know if you
weren't in the Chambers at the particular time -- but during Budget
sessions that took place in June, I offered a motion. I offered a
motion that embodied three principles. Unfortunately, I couldn't get
a second for that motion. But the motion, one, reduced the tax rate
to 85¢ which, if passed, would have meant that the property taxpayers
of the City of Anaheim would not have been out of pocket one penny
more than what they were put out a year ago. Two, would ask the
Council to set a policy that, in fact, in future years they would not
77-897
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
THOM:
ROTH:
THOM:
collect any more property taxes than they had collected in the
previous year allowing for an increase in inflation, whatever I
stated the Consumer Price Index may have gone up, and allowance
for percentage increase for population growth and limiting it to
that. And then, finally, the third principle that that motion
embodied was to distribute information -- disseminate information
among all the taxpayers -- property taxpayers in the City of Anaheim
that would show very clearly the performance record, vis-a-vis property
taxes and increases or decreases, of this City Council as compared to
all other taxing agencies in Orange County. Now that was my attempt
to try and to deliver a reasonable approach to property tax reform
in the City of Anaheim. As I said, and the record will show, unfortu-
nately I was not able to get a second.
Well, just..oh, excuse me. Go ahead, Don.
Well, I have one comment, and Councilman Seymour's remarks about
what the appointed individuals can do what they want and there is
no retaliation, nothing happened, I would like to bring this Council's
attention that after I was elected, it didn't take long for this
Council by a 4-1 vote to eleminate Mr. Herb Leo off the Redevelopment
Commission, because certainly he wasn't in accord with the tune
evidently of the majority of this Council. So I don't think that is
really playing it like it is. And, secondly, I think there may be
some conflict by people in high positions in these...in this respect,
and I don't think you can serve two masters, so we ought to take a
look at that. And, furthermore, about again, and I'd like to remind
this Council, that during the Budget hearings, we heard Mrs. Jan Hall,
we heard other people come up here and make pleas, and was the pleas
we had to retain the 95¢ or possibly a 93¢ tax rate. Now that there
is this upsurge of grass roots that I'm hearing about, then I'm going
now to have to modify my position, and I think we ought to reduce the
property tax, Mr. Seymour, and I will join with you because this
upsurge of grass roots people want reduction of property taxes, and we
can start right away by holding back some of the much needed capital
improvements for this city. And I believe that we should move in the
direction of the grass roots and what the people want. So I think we
have to set this tax rate -- what is it, the 23rd of August? or the
22nd of August? -- I think that by that time we ought to take a look
at it. We can hold some of these things up, and we ought to move to
what the people want. If the people want reduction to 75¢, let's do
it immediately. Why not?
Ok, I'll throw in my two cents worth, I wasn't going to , but
(ROTH: I wasn't, either.) now that we're going to -- we're
going to make a -- we're going to have a little fun and games with
this afternoon, we might as well go fun and games all the way. First
part, I wholely support Councilman Seymour's analysis of the rights
of commissioners, board members, whomever, to involve themselves in
the political process anyway they want. The previous administration
of this city promulgated in '72, I believe, what became known as the
"Infamous Seymour Ordinance". The "Infamousn Seymour Ordinance" at
Tr -
77-898
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
KAYWOOD:
that time was a direct type of retribution by law that this city
imposed on any commissioner who dared to run for public office. The
act of his filing for it constituted his resignation. John fought
that unjust ordinance in court. Unfortunately, didn't prevail, but
thank God this Council in '74 rescinded it almost immediately because
we encouraged all board members and all commissioners to become as
active as they want in city politics without having the law to hinder
them. The only -- and certainly this, I think is the proper way --
you'll never get personalities out of it, but at least you can keep
the law out of it, and I wholeheartedly commend any commissioner or
any board member or any local activist to get as involved as they
want. It does bring a certain amount of displeasure from some Council
Members but, you know, not all of them. Secondarily, I think it's only
fair to state for the record -- and I believe it's still true and
if it isn't I, I will apologize for it, but Mr. Brown has been a long
time member of VOTE, V.O.T.E. This once stood for Voters Opposed to
Taxing Entertainment. I believe today it stand for Victims of Thom's
Egalitarianism, whatever. Anyhow, V.O.T.E. is, of course, the heavy
entertainment contributing organization to political candidates who
will oppose, who will oppose taxing any kind of entertainment. So,
I think the attack was done well Fred, on behalf of V.O.T.E. and I
think turned off well by Council. I certainly feel it's the right
of any group of citizens to petition their government, this is in
the United States Constitution and that's what this group of citizens
is doing, they're petitioning their government to have an item on the
ballot for people to vote on. You know, how much more American can
you get than that? It's the way our society is run. So I think it's
a tribute to the American idealism that COMBAT represents. They're
trying to keep politicians out of it and trying to get it to the
electorate where it belongs; it's a question that is of great interest
in this city and I think they're doing it the right way and I certainly
commend them for it. Ail of the Commissioners and Board Members
mentioned by Mr. Brown are friends of certainly the bulk of this
Council, we all know them. We know as we know personally most of the
people who serve on all of the commissions. And, you know, I meet
with them informally almost on a daily basis. I run across them
because they're businessmen and residents in this city and it's hard
not to run across them, and I do have lunch with them quite often, I
do have breakfast with them quite often. I will occasionally imbibe
a hospitable beverage with them, sometimes to excess, but it's still
a lot of fun and, because they're great people. So I certainly
encourage them and support them and wish them well. Now, perhaps we
can get on to the next item.
I need to make one further comment, I merely clarified the record on
the other statement I made. Seeing this become such a political issue
and in reading the petition itself, which I did not have the ability
to do; the first I knew about it was the phone call from the press
asking for my comments. To me, it could not be a worse witches brew
of everything thrown in together that makes very little sense and a
77.-899
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
great deal of confusion and irresponsibility and as we well know,
when something is subject to everybody's interpretation, there is a
great deal of problem involved with it because who rules you need to
to hire a lot more attorneys to find out. The fact that this is
talked about to be an amendment to the Charter and placed into the
Charter, which makes it totally inflexible. If it should turn out
that, in fact, there is an electorate that does accept this, and
that says yes we shall tax admission and then doubly on Disneyland
also tax each ride, which was never brought up two years ago, there-
fore, it's a 12 percent tax on Disneyland; I believe they're the
only one that applies to, and then lower the property tax maximum
to 75 cents, thereby also tying your hands and making an elected
body impossible to act on something that would ....
Councilwoman Kaywood, we all took turns commenting on this, why
couldn't you do it...
I did not comment on this.
You had your chance.
I commented on the appointment.
We've got a lot more things in front of us.
Your honorable dictatorshop, I would like to...
Would you try to sum it up?
make the comment that I...
Try to, try to get succinct and, you know, try to put it in a few
words.
have to make. It will be much shorter if you'll keep out of it.
Well, I would like to try to keep out of it, but you ramble around
the road..
There are ideas in here that I'm sure have not been questioned, there
are many more questions than there are answers. If indeed there is
to be an admission tax on every entertainment in the City, what happens
to the theatres, the movie theatres that are playing the same films
that are in other cities that are adjoining Anaheim. Unless it is
some kind of an exclusive where the lines are going round and round,
then just as they brought out two years ago, and we all concurred,
they will obviously lose business to other cities. If this happens
long enough, then they, in fact, could be put out of business.
You're running down a no ending street, will you try to bring...
We have a Tennis Concepts and we have a Concrete Wave.
77-900
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
VOICE FROM
AUDIENCE:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
HOPKINS:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
ROTH:
THOM:
ROTH:
THOM:
.. it to an end before I have to force it on you. Or I will
continue talking until you stop.
I also was elected by the people of Anaheim...
Try to get it said in a reasonalbe amount of time. You've been
on it for five minutes now plus the other three, that's eight,
that's five minutes longer than anyone else has talked about it.
Are you through?
Not unless I'm assured you are. (ROTH:. laughter)
If we have a tax on the Concrete Wave and the Tennis Conplex which
we have as joint uses in the City and put them out of business, that
also takes the money out of the City coffers. On the golf courses,
on all the Stadium events...
Ail right Miriam, I'm gonna rule it out of order. We're going to
proceed onto Item 7..
the Convention Center. I would like to...
Will the City Clerk please call for Item 7.
(inaudiable)
I would like to ask the City Attorney what right the Mayor...
We'll please call for Item 7.
· ..has to stop a Council Member from speaking.
Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor is the presiding officer and'he can
request a vote of the Council as to the right of any Council Member to
continue.
I have one further comment that, Councilman Roth, I hope that you're
not going to be playing games with the tax rate here again..
If the grass roots want 75 cents, we should do it today.
Fine. Well let's see what the grass roots are.
Why not do it today?
Five people do not a grass roots make.
Five people. They're talking about hundreds and hundreds of people.
Very good. Now can we have Item 7?
Sure.
Thank you. "
77-901
City Hallm.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
113 AND 127: REPORTING OF BASEBALL TICKETS ON ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS:
Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, stated that there were several discrepancies
in Councilman Kott's compliance with the campaign disclosure provisions of the
Political Reform Act and Statement of Economic Interests (Form 721). He pointed
out that on Form 721-E where gifts were to be listed, baseball tickets received
gratuitously from the Goldenwest Baseball Company (California Angels) during the
1976 season were not listed and Councilman Kott was in attendance on many occasions.
All other Council Members had listed their tickets.
The Mayor interjected by asking the City Attorney to instruct the Council how to
handle the matter if Mr. Dexter was going to make a charge.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that legislation was recently changed so that on
any violations concerning Proposition 9, the District Attorney or the Fair Political
Practices Commission processed any charges and pursued any complaint of violations.
The Council and the City Attorney had no authority to take action on any violation
under Proposition 9.
The Mayor clarified that the Council could take no action if charges were involved
in Mr. Dexter's presentation.
Mr. Dexter then broached several matters relative to Committee Campaign Statements
and the full Disclosure Act, relating to Councilman Kott and his recent allegations
in reference to former Councilman Sneegas and the City Manager. Before closing,
however, and after referring to the recent indictment of Councilman Kott regarding
alleged discrepancies in Campaign Disclosures, suggested that he (Kott) resign as
Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Anaheim.
Discussion followed between Mr. Dexter and Mayor Thom revolving around the possible
motivation for Mr. Dexter's presentation.
No action was taken by the Council.
RECESS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
Council recessed for 10 minutes (2:50 P.M.).
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present (3:00 P.M.).
PUBLIC HEARING - 1976-77 WEED ABATEMENT ROLL: To receive a report from the Fire
Chief on the cost of abatement of weeds for each individual lot where work was
performed under the 1976-77 Weed Abatement Program and to hear any objections
from property owners liable to be assessfor the abatement.
The Mayor asked if there were any objection relative to the 1976-77 Weed Abatement
Roll. There were no objections to the roll; therefore, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-547 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated July 26, 1977 from Fire Chief James Riley. Refer to Resolution
Book.
77-902
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-547: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE COST OF WEED ABATE-
MENT, AND DIRECTIN~ THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE.
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-547 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1706: Application by Stephen Hopkins
Development Company, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 1703 Kellogg Drive with code waiverof minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-125 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 1706 be granted
subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 4.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Petrolane Incorporated,
dba Stater Brothers Markets, and public hearing scheduled this date.
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 Com~nission.
Councilman Kott asked if the property in question was part of the whole center and
if the owners of the property were in agreement with the proposed use in conjunction
with the parking.
Miss Santalahti explained that the subject property was a separate legal parcel and
part of the contiguous development originally under the same ownership. The CC&Rs,
however, provided for a mutual exchange in parking but the City did not typically
concern itself with CC&Rs.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that he had a copy of the CC&Rs which were merely
reviewed by his office for legality. The City did not enforce them or become in-
volved in various aspects of the documents. If it was considered that the provisions
were violated, such matters should be discussed with an attorney or taken to court
with no City involvement.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was presen~t and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Demar Baron, 1444 North Glassell, Orange, Agent for the Applicant, explained that
the question involved was relative to parking, but there were differences of opinion
between themselves, Petrolane and George Colts Properties as to the amount of parking
available at the site. Accordingly, they made a study and took a car count on three
77-903
_C. ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
different days and hours to determine the business activities of the center and the
studies revealed that only 22 percent of the parking spaces were being utilized. At
that point, they proceeded to ask for a conditional use permit on the property.
Mr. Fritz Duda, 550 Newport Center Drive, Suite 900, Newport Beach, General
Partner of Orangethorpe Plaza Associates, owner of Orangethorpe Plaza, stated
as managers of the Center, it was their responsibility to administer the CC&Rs.
In terms of enforceability, they had to act in fairness to all the tenants in
the shopping center in connection with that instrument. From a map, Mr. Duda
pointed out the three major areas of the shopping center, the first containing
Stater Brothers Market to the rear of the property, the second containing the
shops and the third constituting the parcel in question relative to the Condi-
tional Use Permit. They studied the situation and met with the applicant and
the problem basically revolved around the projected parking use in comparison
to the immaturity of the Stater Brothers Market at the present time. Although
the traffic counts taken by the applicant indicating parking was available, a
traffic count based upon anticipated volumes in the market was such that the
Center would end up surcharging other parking. He stated of the parking spaces
involved, many were for employees located to the rear of the shops and not avail-
able in close proximity to the stores themselves. They did not object to the
construction of a restaurant~ but to a drive-through and the prospect of having
to surcharge available parking to other tenants in the Center. Thus, they were
opposed to the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 1706 as being inconsistent
with other uses in the area.
Mr. Duda explained for Mayor Thom that the subject property was not sold by them
to the applicant and they had never owned the parcel.
Mr. Donald Frink, Petrolane Incorporated, dba Stater Brothers Markets, 5540 Inner
Circle Drive, Riverside, stated that relative to parking, only 179 spaces would
be available instead of 232 because of the first 53 spaces being not readily
accessible to the general public. Mr. Frink then relayed figures on average
overall checkouts at the market taken during the period July 14 through 31, 1977,
checkouts during peak hours, 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.,
during that same period, and projected checkouts when the store reached maturity.
In the final analysis, he contended that there was a total conflict in the amount
of existing parking area for the retail trade in the Center. His company was
convinced that with the success anticipated for the entire Center, the addition
of traffic and parking that would be generated by the proposed drive-through would
be detrimental to the Center as a whole and for that reason appealed and continued
to oppose Conditional Use Permit No. 1706.
Mr. Alan Hollingshead, 4132 East Larkstone, Orange, Partner in Short-Stop Inc.,
stated that he had been the owner of a Del Taco for ten years and was the anti-
cipated owner of the proposed unit. He explained that the 12 spaces available
at his unit on Harbor Boulevard were not used most of the day. The main objective
of a drive-through was to get customers in and out as fast as possible eliminating
the need for additional parking. He could understand the concern expressed, but
did not consider it to be based on fact. Since a great deal of money had been spent
on the project, he was concerned as to exactly what was transpiring because, along
with the new Stater Brothers Market that opened in Elsinore, a new Naugles Restaurant
associated with the market opened on the same property.
Councilman Seymour indicated that, being familiar with a drive-through operation, he
had yet to see that type of operation create a parking problem and the City in the
77-904
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
past established a tr~ck record of granting a parking waiver in the case of drive-
through restaurants. He was curious to know if, in fact, that was the real objection.
Mr. Hollingshead indicated that all he was told was that the Center may need
additional parking in the future, but he questioned the need for immediate use.
Miss Santalahti confirmed for Councilman Roth that 34 spaces were required for
the drive-through and 11 spaces were proposed. However, the surrounding shopping
center currently had excess parking for the amount of buildings contained therein
and the CC&Rs indicated there was a sharing of parking. On that basis, the Commis-
sion considered the waiver to be appropriate.
Mr. Frink was contesting the fact that a stipulation in the City's ordinance required
5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building and they set up each of three
parcels for the size to meet the ordinance. Now, this was being exceeded. He
emphasized that to make a variation on that ordinance at this time was unfair to
those who had expended considerable energies and monies plus the fact that the
drive-in business dollar volume would not equal the cost of installing the market.
He also adamantly confirmed for Councilman Seymour that no other issue was involved
relative to their appeal other than the concern of his organization that granting
of Conditional Use Permit No. 1706 would jeopardize their situation relative to
parking.
Mr. Duda first clarified that he had just met Mr. Frink today and secondly he was
discussing parking because it was his understanding that was the technical issue
upon which the Council had to make a determination.
Both the Mayor and Councilman Seymour stressed that was not a correct assumption.
Mr. Duda then relayed peripheral areas of concern, specifically the ingress and
egress problem that would be created at the only access point servicing the entire
Center off Orangethorpe. Working from the site plan, he elaborated on the problem
that would be created due to the traffic going across the common area and stacking
of cars at the drive-through which would cause congestion in the main driveway.
If Del Taco proposed to build their own driveway off Kellogg Drive to the north,
there would be no problem. However, merchants would rely upon free access from
Orangethorpe. He emphasized that although the parking was a concern today because
it was a problem to Stater Brothers, it was not a controlling decision in terms
of ownership of the Center in appearing before the Council.
Councilman Seymour asked Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, how many cars could be
stacked at the drive-through without interfering with the driveway.
Mr. Singer stated that at the time the matter came before the Planning Commission
it was determined that 8 cars could be stacked but that was in relation to the
pick-up window and not the ordering microphone.
Further discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Singer in which
possible alternatives were discussed relative to parking and stacking for the
drive-through, one of which appeared to be a viable solution.
Mr. David Richardson, 279 East Lincoln, expressed the opinion that as an investment,
it would be wiser for the applicant to acquire a larger piece of property for future
expansion.
77-905
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour stated, in his opinion, there may be a possibility to locate
a Del Taco on the subject property and he was not opposed to that; however, he
was aware of the problem that would be created as the property owner indicated
if the plan was approved and stacking of cars was permitted to take place as
outlined. People that may want to patronize Stater Brothers or other shops in
the Center would not be able to enter or exit without difficulty. Therefore,
he could not vote favorably on the current plan. If the applicant was willing
to present a redesign similar to one of the alternatives suggested by Mr. Singer,
he would consider it favorably. At this point, however, he did not know whether
to reject the project or continue the matter if the applicant was interested in
a continuance.
The Mayor stated that it was apparent there was a dispute between the applicant
and the owners relative to the CC&Rs and he did not want to be involved in such
a dispute.
It was Councilwoman Kaywood's opinion that rear-end collisions would result in
negotiating right turns into the Center because of the congestion that would be
created and agreed with Councilman Seymour that people would avoid the Center if
they could not enter or exit freely. If the Center failed, the City would also
fail by receiving less revenues. She could not support Conditional Use Permit
No. 1706 under the present configuration.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the matter be continued for three weeks to
give the applicant an opportunity to submit an approved parking redesign pre-
cluding stacking, rather than a denial of the project. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor suggested that it should be determined from the
applicants as to whether or not they wished a continuance.
Both Mr. Hollingshead and Mr. Baron stated they did not want a continuance.
No action was taken on the foregoing motion.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Council granted a Negative
Declaration on Conditional Use Permit No. 1706 at their meeting of July 12, 1977.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-548 for adoption denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 1706. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R, 548: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1706.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Kott and Thom
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-548 duly passed and adopted.
77-906
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 76-23A: In accordance with application filed by
Robert E. Bickler, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of
an existing public utility easement to permit the installation of a swimming pool
without encroaching into the existing easement located at 118 South Trevor Street,
pursuant to Resolution No. 77R-508 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval of the proposed
abandonment unconditionally.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mrs. Robert Bickler, 118 South Trevor Street, explained that they asked for 5-feet
but assumed there was no point in requesting anything else at the Council meeting.
They did go through the Utilities Department and were given a "pie-shaped" abandon-
ment, thus they would have to redesign their pool.
The Mayor explained that all the Council had before them was the action of the
Planning Commission recommending that the abandonment be approved.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
A brief discussion followed wherein Councilman Seymour questioned staff as to why
an Encroachment Permit was not used instead of an abandonment relative to the
subject typical easement of overhead lines. At the conclusion of discussion, Miss
Santalahti explained that the requirement was the result of the liabilty aspect
involved since the City was becoming more concerned in that area. City Attorney
Hopkins confirmed that the change was due to the liability that the City incurred
in such matters.
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 within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-549 for adoption approving Abandonment
No. 76-23A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-549: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT.
(PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 76-23A) (118 South Trevor Street)
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-549 duly passed and adopted.
77-907
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 76-25A: In accordance with application filed by
the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency public hearing was held on the proposed abandon-
ment of a portion of related easements located north of Lincoln Avenue between
Claudina and Emily Streets to relocate an existing sanitary sewer line pursuant
to Resolution No. 77R-507 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval of the proposed
abandonment subject to the condition that the existing sanitary sewer line be
relocated at no cost to the City.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-550 for adoption~approving Abandon-
ment No~ 76-25A subject to the condition that the existing sanitary sewer line be
relocated at no cost to the City. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-550: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT.
(SEWER LINE EASEMENT 76-25A) (north of Lincoln Avenue between Claudina and Emily
Streets)
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-550 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 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 Mr. and Mrs. George Bermudez for personal loss purportedly
sustained as a result of electricity being turned off on or about July 20, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Lowana Cilley for reimbursement for car wash and wax expense
incurred purportedly as a result of damage to vehicle when work was done on lot
across the street from American Can Company on South Street on or about July 21
1977. '
77-908
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by S. P. Collins for reimbursement of car cleaning expense
incurred purportedly as a result of oil damage to vehicle parked on South Street
on or about July 11, 1977.
d. Claim submitted by Controlled Interval Scheduling, Inc., for property damages
purportedly sustained as a result of oil over-spray on or about June 13, 1977.
e. Claim submitted by Mrs. Arnold Durking for reimbursement of phone call expense
incurred as a result of water being shut off on or about June 3, 1977.
f. Claim submitted by Jane Gutzmann for reimbursement of car wash expenses incurred
purportedly as a result of road oil and tar being sprayed on vehicle on or about
July 11, 1977.
g. Claim submitted by Lillian Schroeder for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of work being done on lot on South Street (across from American Can
Company) on or about July 20, 1977.
h. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for damages purportedly
sustained during installation of water service at the northwest corner of
Country Club and Blackbird on or about June 17, 1977.
2. BROOKHURST PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING, STAGE II CONSTRUCTION, CHANGE ORDER NO. 2:
Authorization for Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $7,811.02, Near-Cai Corpor-
ation, Contractor, was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the City
Engineer.
3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 109: City of La Palma Resolution No. 77-57 urging the enactment of legislation
that would require proof of financial responsibility prior to the issuance of a
driver's license and prior to annual vehicle registration.
b. 173: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Notice of Hearing
of Application No. 57129 of Buena Park Development Corporation, dba Holiday Inn of
Buena Park, for authority to operate as a passenger stage corporation between Holiday
Inn in Buena Park and Disneyland.
c. 105:
d. 175:
e. 105:
f. 105:
g. 105:
Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of June 22, 1977.
Monthly reports for April, May and June, 1977 - Customer Service Division.
Project Area Committee - Minutes of July 12, 1977.
Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of July 20, 1977.
Public Utilities Board - Minutes of April 21, 1977.
h. 175: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Notice of Hearing
of the Application No. 57399 of Southern California Edison Company for authority
to modify its energy cost adjustment clause to increase its energy cost adjustment
billing factor.
MOTION CARRIED.
77-909
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-551, 77R-552 AND 77R-554: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution Nos. 77R-551, 77R-552 and 77R-554 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-551: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Homes by Josed, Inc., et
al; Canyon Plaza Shopping Center)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-552: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH THE ORANGETHORPE &
IMPERIAL ASSOCIATES. (76-15E)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-554: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FURNISH AND INSTALL TRAFFIC
SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH BICYCLE LANES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD,
EAST CITY LIMITS TO WEST CITY LIMITS, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-728-16-0875; 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 25, 1977, 2:00 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-551, 77R-552 and 77R-554 duly passed and
adopted.
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 76-20E: Submitted by A. F. Mitchell to permit a portion
of an existing sign overhang to encroach into dedicated right of way located at
the south side of Ball Road, east of Harbor Boulevard (428 West Ball Road).
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the sign should have been put in the proper place
and she would vote against the request for an Encroachment Permit. She explained
that the item was originally handled in a peculiar manner and ended up by costing
the City a law suit and expenditures that were unnecessary. She thereupon offered
a Resolution denying Encroachment Permit No. 76-20F.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood explained for Councilman Kott that
initially the item was one which he brought up under Council Comments wherein
several people wanted to acquire permits immediately and start building a motel
although it had been postponed at the Planning Commission level. No staff input
or prior material of any kind was available and when she asked that the matter be
delayed, her recommendation was rejected. She contended that if proper procedures
had been followed, the resultant law suit could have been avoided. Even though
at this time the permit pertained only to a sign encroachment, she did not feel
that they were entitled to anything further of a special nature.
77-910
.C.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution and failed to carry by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-553 for adoption granting Encroachment
Permit No. 76-20E as recommended in memorandum dated June 20, 1977 from the City
Engineer and ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed
activity is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-553: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PE~IT WITH LEE O. WEBB AND
FLORENCE L. WEBB AND JOSEPH G. NICOSIA (76-20E).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-553 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3743: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3743 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3743: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
17.08.400, 17.08.410, 17.08.420, 17.08.425, 17.08.030, AND 17.08.440 OF TITLE
17, CHAPTER 17.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 17.08.400,
17.08.410, 17.08.420, 17.08.425, 17.08.030, AND 17.08.440 IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD
RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
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. 3743 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3744 AND 3745: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3744 and
3745 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3744: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-60, ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3745: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-1, RS-7200)
77-911
~City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2~ 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 Ordinance Nos. 3744 and 3745 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3746: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3746 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3746: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.56, SECTION 14.56.040 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
NO RIGHT TURN AGAINST RED OR "STOP" SIGNAL. (intersection of La Palma Avenue
and Miller Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3746 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3747: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3747 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3747: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-42, RM-4000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3747 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3748: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3748 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3748: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (7~-77-19, 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 No. 3748 duly passed and adopted.
77-912
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3749: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3749 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3749: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(17 & 18), ML)
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. 3749 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3750 THROUGH 3753: Councilman ~Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3750
through 3753, both inclusive, for first reading.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3750: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
3.44.030 OF TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3.44 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW
CHAPTER 2.12 TO TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAXES.
ORDINANCE NO. 3751: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(82), CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 3752: AN~RDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(20), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3753: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-12, CL)
Relative to Ordinance 3750, Mr. Talley pointed out for the record and in the event
the City was challenged in the future, that the ordinance included imposing the
Occupancy Tax directly on transients which could exist in mobile homes, apartments
or recreational and mobile home type parks for less than 30-days.
Councilman Seymour clarified that the tax did not pertain in anyway to someone
in a mobile home park leasing a space on a monthly basis.
148: RESOLUTIONS - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: Councilwoman Kaywood referred
to the packet of resolutions received by all Council Members from the League of
California Cities for consideration and subsequent vote at the August 11, 1977
meeting of the League. She pointed out that many had already been approved or
initiated by the Council and, as well, resolutions A through I had already been
adopted but it was necessary to know which of those the Council wanted to have
forwarded to the State League. She further elaborated on the contents of some
of the resolutions and suggested that those be approved or continued one week
to allow time for further analysis. By general Council consent, consideration
of the resolutions was continued for one week.
148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - DUES STRUCTURE: Councilwoman Kaywood explained
that another item that was again discussed at the special meeting of the League
of California Cities was dues assessment. If the four large cities (including
Anaheim) continued to withhold their dues, the League would collapse. Another
77-913
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
assessment formula devised at the meeting was a $100 base formula added to each
City to put them on notice that there would be a minimum fee which could be changed
the next time.
The Mayor reiterated that Anaheim's position was and continued to be a $500 minimum
reaffirmed by a vote of the Council on two occasions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the $500 minimum failed twice at the League level
and they were looking for some way to resolve the problem.
The Mayor confirmed for Councilman Seymour that not only Anaheim, but also Santa Ana,
Garden Grove and Huntington Beach had adopted and were adamant in maintaining their
position for a $500 minimum fee.
Councilman Roth stated that until such time as someone could justify the subsidizing
of the smaller cities, he would be firm in his stand on the $500 minimum.
The Mayor added that he was in favor of one proposal that was offered; taking the
entire League budget and dividing it into 26, the number of cities involved in
Orange County.
120: COMPLAINT RELATIVE TO ACCIDENT AT BROOKHURST PARK: The Mayor referred to
a letter personally directed to him from Mrs. DeLong regarding an accident that
occurred at Brookhurst Park involving her son as well as a memorandum from Mr.
James Ruth to which he (Ruth) attached a copy of his reply to Mrs. DeLong. The
reason he broached the matter was due to the fact that City Manager Talley was
also discussed in the letter.
Mr. Talley related the history of the incident which he had carefully recorded, and
that he had indicated to Mrs. DeLong that if she thought the City was deficient, a
claim should be filed with the City Clerk. In addition he reported that by two
o'clock that afternoon, the defective piece of equipment at Brookhurst Park was
back in proper working order.
Councilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (4:17 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 4:18 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK