1977/11/08 77-1215
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 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
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
DISASTER SERVICES COORDINATOR: Frank Madden
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze
INVOCATION:
Invocation.
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
Reverend Randy Rhoades of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Thom and
unanimously approved by the City Council. They were accepted by Jim Geddes,
Judy Sebastian, and Terry Widen, respectively.
"Lungs for Life Week in Anaheim" - November 13-19, 1977
"Alcoholism Action Week in Anaheim" - November 14-20, 1977
"A Week of Concern in Anaheim" - November 14-20, 1977
PRESENTATION - AVENUE OF THE FLAGS PROJECT: Mr. Bill Erickson presented a
check for $500 to Mr. Larry Sierk, Executive Vice President of the Chamber of
Commerce, to assist financially in the Avenue of the Flags Project. Mr. Erickson
also referred to the additional material submitted to the Council relative to
the project so that they might be kept fully apprised of the project's progress.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
minutes of the regular meeting held October 18, 1977, and the special called
meeting held October 28, 1977, were approved, subject to typographical
corrections on the meeting of October 18, 1977 and as corrected on the meeting
of October 28, 1977. 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.
77-1216
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,091,860.82, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
120: REPORT - SLIDE AREA AT COUNTRY HILL ROAD: Mr. Frank Madden, Disaster Services
Coordinator, explained that the situation had stabilized due to the shoring activity
that took place and no additional movement had occurred between 1100 and 2300 hours.
Two families had been evacuated and would not be allowed to return until the
engineers completed their study. He stated there was good response from City
departments, and as well, the Gas and Telephone Companies had responded quickly and
cut-off power into the affected areas and restored service in areas not affected.
In concluding, Mr. Madden stated that a minor fissure was discovered on the south
side of Country Hill Road, however, it probably would not be lost.
Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins stated he had been in contact with the
developer, G. L. Lewis Company, who worked all night to stabilize the slope as
a result of action taken by his office giving them emergency powers to do so, and
it was possible that work would have to again continue throughout the night.
Upon questioning by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Madden further clarified the status
of the situation especially with regard to the homes involved. He also stated,
in answer to Councilman Kott, that the problem was caused by excavation activity
conducted by the G. L. Lewis in the dry lake below.
Mr. Hopkins interjected that Public Works would determine the cause of the slide
and experts were in the area at the present to ascertain exactly how it occurred.
He also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that Country Hill Road was totally
blocked off and impassable, but residents on the far side still had access by going
to the backside of the road as confirmed by Mr. Madden. Further, they were taking
precautions to prevent anyone from going into the area. Presently, he needed Council
ratification of his action granting the G. L. Lewis Company permission to work through
the previous night, as well as that same permission that night, if necessary.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Assistant City
Manager's action authorizing the developer to continue working around the clock on
November 7, 1977 was ratified and authorization given to do so again November 8, 1977,
if necessary, to alleviate the emergency situation. MOTION CARRIED.
174: PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, FOURTH
YEAR APPLICATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth,
the City Clerk was directed to set public hearings for the CDBG, Fourth Year Appli-
cation, on Tuesday, December 13, 1977, at 7:00 P.M., and Tuesday, January 10, 1978,
at 3:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
174: FUTURE PROGRAM FOR ENTIRE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA: Council-
man Seymour stated that a problem not new to the Council had arisen in the neigh-
borhood roughly bounded by East Street, Vine Street, Sycamore Street and Lincoln
Avenue, where a mix of land uses existed consisting of a single-family residential
neighborhood with a high percentage of owner occupancy and a belt of apartments,
some in excellent condition and well maintained, deteriorating down to the type of
apartments existing in the Robin, Wren, Bluejay, Chevy Chase area. Then, north of
Sycamore there were again very well maintained older single-family residences. He
explained that the City Clerk had received petitions signed by approximately 150
residents in the subject area requesting that a number of actions be taken to pre-
serve their neighborhood. The Redevelopment Agency, in conjunction with the
77-1217
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Community Development Department had already investigated the matter and targeted
the area for neighborhood preservation.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct staff, in a high priority fashion, to
submit a report to the Council within 30 days specifically outlining what the
City's program was going to be relative to achieving objectives and setting goals
for the subject area, as well as time schedules in which these goals andobjectives
could be achieved. The specific areas to be covered were (1) code enforcement,
(2) street lights, (3) street sweeping, (4) trash bins, (5) Police patrol, (6)
re-installation of median on Cypress between East & Vine Streets. It was his
opinion that the residents were now in a position of wanting to work with the City
in helping preserve their neighborhood. Since their desires closely identified
with the objectives the City had set forth, this was an opportunity to move ahead
and demonstrate good faith with the community at large. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour explained for Councilman Kott, that
part of the area was involved in the General Plan of Project Alpha, but part was
also just outside the area denoted as a Neighborhood Preservation Area.
The Mayor was concerned that the proposed project was being placed ahead of the
Robin, Wren, Bluejay, Chevy Chase area.
Councilman Seymour stated that area was one being worked on by the Planning Depart-
ment and they had set a time schedule relative to Building Code enforcement. His
proposal came under the jurisdiction of Redevelopment and Community Development.
It was an opportunity for the two departments to work hand-in-hand in two neigh-
borhoods at one time.
The Mayor recommended the expansion of Councilman Seymour's motion to cover the
entire Community Development area up to La Palma Avenue to the north rather than
single out one area particularly relating to Code enforcement, street lights,
street sweeping and Police patrol. Ail areas had a right to such services.
Councilman Seymour explained that he did not intend to exclude other neighborhoods,
but there was a need to start somewhere. If the City was to undertake improving
the entire Community Development area or the entire City, staff would make a great
effort, but little would be accomplished. At present, there were two neighborhoods
where pilot projects could be implemented and the one he identified today was not
the most difficult to undertake; however, not at the exclusion of any other.
The Mayor was adamant in his stand that the entire Community Development area be
included as opposed to three or four blocks in that area. He would support the
motion only under those circumstances. Otherwise, in his opinion, to single out
the area as outlined by Councilman Seymour would be inverse discrimination.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Seymour's assessment in that if a
City-wide or a large area was involved for implementation of neighborhood preserva-
tion, there would only be lengthy discussions and no action. The time and place to
begin such a program was in a small area in which the homeowners were interested
in cooperating.
77-1218
City Hall, Ar~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Further Council discussion followed, revolving around the removal of the median
on Cypress Street between East and Vine, wherein Councilman Roth requested input
from the Traffic Engineer relative to reinstallation since a great deal of contro-
versy surrounded the matter when a prior Council directed the medians be removed
because of the hazard they presented.
Councilman Seymour then clarified that all he was asking for was a 30-day period
for staff to report back to the Council with an outline for a broad program for the
area. He was willing to modify his motion to include the concept and intent that
his proposal be considered a pilot project for the remainder of the entire Community
Development area. He reiterated his concern that if the program for the entire
area was to be implemented all at one time, it would be unsuccessful.
At the conclusion of further discussion, Councilman Seymour stated he would be
amenable to including the entire Community Development area in his motion with the
understanding that the initial area as outlined, be considered a pilot project, after
which the program would continue on through the remainder of the area. The Mayor
was supportive of that concept.
Councilman Seymour also explained for Councilman Kott, that the funds for the
program would either come from Redevelopment or Community Development or both.
The majority of the subject neighborhood was in the Redevelopment area, thus
presenting a unique opportunity to use Redevelopment funds. In checking with
Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, the area outside could
also fall into Redevelopment under the concept that if rehabilitation was of benefit
to the Redevelopment project area, Redevelopment funds could be used.
Mr. Priest clarified that in terms of redevelopment, they were restricted to
capital projects as opposed to usual services. He also explained that the same
comments and petitions were received through the CDBG hearings held to date.
The City Clerk confirmed that she received a petition outlining residents concerns
as articulated by Councilman Seymour containing approximately 176 signatures which
was scheduled for the December 6, 1977 agenda. Two separate petitions were received,
however, one dealing strictly with the median reinstallation request.
As suggested by the Mayor, Councilman Seymour also incorporated as part of his
motion, that the report requested outlining a specific plan of action and time
table as previously stated be submitted at the 7:00 P.M. meeting on December 13,
1977, in conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant hearing set for
that date and time. A vote was taken on the forgoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
174.123: HUMAN RESOURCES NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES PLAN: Councilman
Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-736 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated October 25, 1977, from the Executive Director of Community Development.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-736: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLANNING GROUP, INC.
TO PERFORM CONSULTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
77-1219
Ci. ty Hall, Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 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-736 duly passed and adopted.
123: ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT BY ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY: Mr. George Ferrone,
Finance Director, briefed the Council on his memorandum dated November 1, 1977,
relative to the subject audit. He explained the reason for the lateness of the
audit report was due to the fact that the M~rshall & Stevens Fixed Asset Study
was late, thus causing the delay. The final audited report by Arthur Young &
Company would be presented at the meeting of November 29, 1977, which was expected
to include an unqualified audit opinion.
Councilman Kott questioned Mr. Ferrone relative to what he considered discrepancies
in dates as set forth in the proposed agreement.
Mr. Ferrone presently was unable to answer Councilman Kott's question since he was
not in the City's employ at the time the proposed amendment to the agreement was
drawn.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-737 for adoption. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-737: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ARTHUR YOUNG AND COMPANY, CERTIFIED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
FIRST AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-737 duly passed and adopted.
174.123: PARTICIPATION IN NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Personnel
Director was authorized to sign agreements to cover training under the North
Orange County Regional Occupational Program as recommended in memorandum dated
November 1, 1977, from the Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED.
173: ESTABLISHMENT OF RAIL PASSENGER STATION AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: (request to
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, AMTRAK) In answer to Councilman Roth,
Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, explained it would be a
number of months before all agreements on the subject were finally concluded and
were commenced.
77-1220
C__ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-722 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated November 1, 1977, from Planning Director
Ron Thompson.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor inquired as to the progress on the City's
application to the State for the monies to construct the station.
Mr. Schwartze explained that a draft contract was received from Caltrans for
$80,000 from SB 283 funds, but prior to the receipt of the money by the City,
an agreement had to be entered into with AMTRAK and the Santa Fe Railroad which
would permit the station development to occur.
Councilman Kott wanted to have included in the proposed resolution a reaffirmation
that the City approved the concept as long as somebody else paid for it. Even
though that stipulation was already understood, he wanted it to be clear and concise.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution as previously offered by
Councilman Seymour. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-722: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) TO APPROVE THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PASSENGER TRAIN STOP AT ANAHEIM STADIUM IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-722 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Kott explained he voted "No" because there was no reaffirmation of
the philosophy that the citizens of Anaheim would not pay for the station itself
whether public or private.
158: TRANSFER OF WALNUT CANYON STORM CHANNEL TO THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT: (from Anaheim Hills Golf Course to Santa Ana Canyon Road) Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-723 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated November 1, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-723: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EASEMENT DEED FROM THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID DEED.
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-723 duly passed and adopted.
77-1221
~ity Hall~ _Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
123: EXTENSION OF SZABO FOOD SERVICE~ INC. FOR ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER:
Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, briefed the Council
on his report dated November 1, 1977, (on file in the City Clerk's Office) rela-
tive to the subject contract which outlined the background of the City's business
relationship with Szabo Foods starting in 1967 which set a new trend in the Conven-
tion Center food service philosophy by establishing a management fee contract.
He further outlined the subsequent ongoing relationship with Szabo both financially,
as well as satisfaction in the food and beverage service offered not only at the
Convention Center but also Anaheim Stadium. Mr. Liegler thus recommended renewal
of the basic agreement with Szabo for food and beverage service at Anaheim Convention
Center through December 31, 1982. As well, the City's position at the Convention
Center relative to the agreement would be improved since the net profit per month
increased to 90 percent rather than the original 80 percent just as at Anaheim
Stadium.
Councilwoman Kaywood relayed to Mr. Liegler some of the many commendations she
heard while attending the Energy Fair at the Convention Center directed to Mr
Liegler, his staff and Szabo Food Service.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-724 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 1, 1977, from Mr. Liegler. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-724: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SZABO FOOD SERVICE, INC.
OF CALIFORNIA, 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-724 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive
Session. (2:26 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilwoman Kaywood. (2:40 P.M.)
153: EFFECTIVE DATE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF CERTAIN REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-725 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-725: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PERTAINING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF
CERTAIN REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (effective October 14, 1977)
77-1222
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-725 duly passed and adopted.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION - STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT: Councilman
Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-726 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NOS. 76R-682, 76R-675 AND 76R-734 AND
AMENDMENTS THERETO AND PORTIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 76R-681 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
(effective October 14, 1977)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-726 duly passed and adopted.
167: EDEN ROC RETIREMENT CENTER - CROSSWALK REQUEST: The City Clerk explained
that a request had just been made by Dorothy Bossenmeyer to discuss the subject
matter at this point on the agenda instead of later as scheduled since there were
a number of elderly people present who were interested in the request.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, consideration of the
request by the Eden Roc Retirement Center for a crosswalk was taken out of order
as requested. Councilwoman Kaywood was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber. (2:42 P.M.)
Mrs. Dorothy Bossenmeyer, 3146 West Ball Road, explained that the request for a
crosswalk on West Ball Road at the Eden Roc Retirement Center by the residents
of the Center had been an ongoing request for some time (see minutes of August 4,
and September 28, 1976) and that the residents were still concerned as evidenced
by the petition submitted containing over 200 signatures. She then explained the
great difficulty experienced with residents having to walk the distance to Knott
Avenue to cross at the signal, up Ball Road, and then return by the same route
when the hospital, medical building and small stores were directly across Ball
Road from Eden Roc. She questioned the Traffic Engineer's recommendation for
denial of the unprotected crosswalk on the basis that it gave a false sense of
security to those utilizing it. If that was the case, then the installation of
any crosswalk was questionable. Her suggestion was to give a previous warning
to vehicles that they were approaching a pedestrian crossing and thus, should
slow down.
77-1223
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mrs. Bossenmeyer stated that as a previous resident of the Center,
she would continue her efforts in trying to have a crosswalk installed because the
present residents of Eden Roc, under the circumstances, were like prisoners, and
they were entitled to consideration.
Councilman Kott questioned the Traffic Engineer as to why some crosswalks were con-
sidered safe and others were not.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained that they were in the process of
eliminating all unprotected crosswalks in the City. Three had been removed with-
out undue complaints, which encouraged him to removal of the balance. His office
had started a specific study of the situation and expected that within six months,
they would be approaching the Council with a request for gradual removal of all
unprotected crosswalks. Many unfortunate collisions had occurred as a result of
such crosswalks. Also, stop signs on arterial highways were another problem creat-
ing rear-end collisions.
Councilman Roth gave a brief history revolving around the previous unprotected
crosswalk in front of his office at Lincoln and Bush where numerous accidents
occurred. In the six-month period since the crosswalk had been removed, a 100%
improvement was experienced. He considered an unprotected crosswalk to be the most
dangerous thing to put on a street.
Although Mrs. Bossenmeyer understood the point Councilman Roth made, she maintained
that something could be done to provide a safe crossing for the residents of Eden
Roc, as well as those living behind the Center in the surrounding neighborhood.
One person had already been killed and one injured at that location.
Councilman Roth stated that at the previous hearing the Council expressed their
concern relative to the plight of the residents, and the Mayor recommended that
the management of Eden Roc be approached to provide a solution.
Mrs. Bossenmeyer explained that transportation was provided if residents needed to
keep medical appointments, but it was not provided just to cross the street.
In summarizing his position, the Mayor explained that the Traffic Engineer always
recommended denial of such requests and he, too, was aware of the inherent dangers
of unprotected crosswalks. He was also under the impression that the residents
recognized the danger involved. However, as long as they were aware that they
could be hit and killed as a result of such crosswalks, they could proceed at their
own risk and he would not oppose their request, although he opposed such requests
philosophically, because he believed the Traffic Engineer to be right in his
assessment. If, after the three discussions and Council meetings with the Eden
Roc residents regarding the dangers involved, they were still adamant in their
request and wanted to take stands, he would support their request.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained she understood the problem and empathized with it,
but Ball Road was very hazardous and motorists traveling at 50 MPH was com~aon. She
did not feel that a warning sign would be beneficial, and the fact that a white line
was painted on the street was no guarantee that it would stop traffic, plus the
fact that the crosswalk would be totally unexpected in the middle of an arterial
street. There would be a pile-up of cars behind ones who stopped after crashing into
77-]224
City Hall~ Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
a pedestrian. It would be ideal to think that signs would be beneficial in slowing
the traffic, but experience showed it did not happen. The people crossing at that
location were slower, and it was her opinion that approval of the crosswalk would
create a suicide alley, and she could not vote for something so dangerous. She felt
it was incumbent upon the Eden Roc management to bring about a solution.
Councilman Roth also emphasized that not only was it the conclusion of the Traffic
'Engineer, but also extensive studies conducted in San Diego documented the inherent
dangers involved with unprotected crosswalks, which report was available through
the Traffic Engineer.
MOTION: Councilman Thom moved to approve the request for a crosswalk on Ball Road
at the Eden Roc Retirement Center. Councilman Kott seconded the motion with the
stipulation that signing be installed at the appropriate distances, as suggested
by Mrs. Bossenmeyer, warning motorists to slow down. The motion failed to carry
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Councilman Seymour explained that in casting his "No" vote, as much as he believed
in the right of individuals to self-determine whether or not they care to take
their life into their hands, there was no practical way of determining that only
those individuals properly informed of the risks involved would utilize that cross-
walk. Thus, it would only be a short time before some uninformed senior citizen,
hard of hearing, weak of sight, slow of foot, would step off the curb and be killed,
and he would not be a party to that.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-54 AND NO. 76-77-55 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2936 NO. 2937~ AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9815: Application by William
and Betty Jo Clow for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 to establish a
12-lot, 43-unit subdivision on property located on the north side of Simmons
Avenue, east of Haster Street, with code waivers of a) maximum building height,
b) minimum recreational leisure area, and to construct a 10-unit apartment complex
with waiver of maximum building height on property located on the east side of
Haster Street, south of Wilken Way.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-194 recommended that
the subject property be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and, further, granted Reclassification No. 76-77-54 for
RM-4000 subject to the following conditions:
77-1225
City Hall, Ammheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land thirty (30) feet in width from the certerline of the street along Simmons
Avenue for street widening purposes, and shall conditionally dedicate the easterly
seventeen (17) feet of subject property (Mountain View Avenue), including a fifteen
(15) foot radius property line return at Simmons Avenue, conditioned upon the
remainder of the street being dedicated.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Simmons Avenue
and Mountain View Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installa-
tion of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as
required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifica-
tions on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities
along Simmons Avenue and Mountain View Avenue shall be installed as required by
the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter
of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall
be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned
requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum
of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Simmons Avenue and Mountain View Avenue
for tree planting purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. 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.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. That owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a public
utility easement as determined by the Director of Public Utilities.
11. That final specific plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval, following public notification of nearby property owners as originally
made. '
77-1226
City Hall, An~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10 and 11, 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.
13. That Conditions Nos, 4, 6 and 7, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC77-195 denied Variance
No. 2936. ' ,
The City Planning Commission also denied Tentative Tract No. 9815.
Regarding Reclassification No. 76-77-55, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Resolution No. PC77-196, recommended that the subject property be declared exempt
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and, further, granted the
Reclassification for RM-4000 zoning, subject to the following conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Haster Street shall be installed as
required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard
specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; or that
a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum
of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Haster Street for tree planting purposes.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south property lines.
6. That drainage of subject preperty shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
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. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1 and 2, 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.
77-1227
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
10. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, above mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-197, denied Variance
No. 2937.
Public hearing on the subject reclassifications, variances and tentative tract
was continued from October 18, 1977, at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Phil Schwartze described the location and surrounding land uses. He outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the
City Planning Commission.
The Mayor if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Dan L. Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, representing
Mr. and Mrs. Clow, explained that the designation of medium density residential was
indicated on the General Plan for at least ten years for the subject property.
Further, three present Council Members worked diligently on that General Plan before
it was adopted and encouraged the then existing Council to adopt that designation
so that those who would follow would have a guideline. Mr. Clow owned the property
for a great number of years and, although he now resided in Newport Beach, he had
been very active in and supported the community. He owned the property with full
knowledge and understanding that the City recognized it for the purpose for which
it was intended, multiple-family dwelling units. Thus, he went before the Planning
Commission with a plan to develop it accordingly resulting in a continuance to allow
him (Clow) to revise plans eliminating variances requested.
Mr. Rowland then relayed the subsequent background wherein he prepared an alternate
plan for Mr. Clow reducing the density to approximately one-half of that originally
proposed and presented it to the neighbors at a meeting at the Paul Revere School.
He then showed the site plan which was presented at that meeting incorporating the
two parcels involved with reduced density from 80 to 41 units. The residents had
a number of genuine concerns in the neighborhood--the only park in the area
(Ponderosa) had more than its share of crime and law enforcement problems, which
they felt would be accentuated with the added density of a residential development,
plus putting pressure on the existing school system. The increase in traffic would
be detrimental, since the corner of Simmons and Haster was presently undeveloped.
They took all these items into consideration and asked the residents what they
could do to improve upon their plan, even though many homeowners considered it was
a great improvement over the original project. Their answer was RS-7200 single-
family dwellings. To accomplish such an alternative, the Clow's recognized that
in order to develop single-family residences on that site or any site in Anaheim,
it would be facing a sales price of $110,000 to $125,000, thus presenting a very
difficult economic situation considering the area. Little was resolved except to
take the plan back to the Planning Commission in the same form, because it was felt
to be the best use for the property given the circumstances.
Mr. Clow subsequently asked if there was anything that could be done within the
short period before the next hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission,
such as a townhouse development. They, therefore, developed a plan for
townhomes and met with the neighbors prior to the Planning Commission
meeting. The plan presented was for a 34-unit townhouse project on the combined
77-1228
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
parcels of property, the site plans for which Mr. Rowland presented to the Council.
This plan further alleviated many of the concerns expressed by the area residents;
it included common recreation facilities on site, the two-story residences were more
than 150 feet away from single-family residences in the Cities of Anaheim, Garden
Grove, and Orange; the little impact the project would have on the traffic would be
more than offset by the improvements that would be made as a result of the project
on that portion of Simmons Street to the corner, as well as Haster Street, and the
current fiscal budget would pick up the balance of the improvement. Their Traffic
Engineer indicated there were no alternatives to lessen the impact of the project
other than the City allowing a left-turn pocket going south on Haster at Simmons.
An additional concern was the street lighting that would be installed along Simmons
causing possible light intrusion on the dwelling units across the street. However,
these could be shielded; but Mr. Rowland commented that lack of street lighting
could be a contributor to the crime problems in the area.
As requested by the applicant at the subsequent Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission denied the application before them for a low medium density development
based on the original plan. They were then asked to zone the property RM-4000,
which would accommodate the present project proposed without variances and waivers.
Thus, they would be able to develop within the zone the City designed for that
specific purpose. Mr. Rowland then read aloud an excerpt from the Code chapter
describing the purpose of RM-4000, which descrip,tion was a perfect one for the
project they were presenting today. All they were asking was for the Council to
exercise the zoning that was developed for the property.
Mr. Nicholas Netty, Attorney representing the homeowners, 625 East Palmyra Avenue,
Orange, stated that the residents were in favor of single-family homes, not apart-
ments or condominiums, since the basic area surrounding the property in question
was a single-family neighborhood. Their primary concern was density, and all the
major problems boiled down to that point. The vast majority of homeowners opposing
the applicants wanted RS-7200 zoning. He then presented a petition signed by 339
residents, 295 in Anaheim and 45 in Orange, supporting reclassification to RS-7200
zoning and opposing the spread of apartments and townhouses/condominiums into the
Haster-Simmons-Lewis Street area. He then presented a chart which he considered
best summarized the feelings of the homeowners in the area showing the subject prop-
erty and those areas surrounding it on all sides. Except for a 2-block area
containing multiple-family residents, the whole neighborhood consisted of single-
family residences.
Mr. Netty then presented a plan showing his conception of how the two parcels could
be utilized for 13 RS-7200 homes, emphasizing that there was a possibility that
such units could be built on the property.
Relative to the park, as mentioned by Mr. Rowland, Mr. Netty pointed out that
activities such as baseball, picnics, walking, etc., could not be done within a
townhouse project. Single-family homes would give space where children could play.
He concluded by stating that most of the homeowners did not care whether or not
single-family homes were one story or two story.
Mr. James Harris, 13032 Simmons Avenue, Orange, resident directly across the street
from the project, first contrasted the official 1970 Anaheim census with that of
1976, showing a marked increase in multiple-family units resulting in an almost
like percentage of single-family units, 47.0%, and multiple-family units, 47.5%.
77-1229
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
If the trend was continuing into the current year, he maintained the half percent
difference was probably now greater in favor of multiple-family dwellings. He then
relayed the percentage figures for Orange, which indicated there were more single-
family dwellings in that city by a 2:1 ratio.
Mr. Harris then briefed the Council on a letter dated June 15, 1977, from the City
of Orange Planning Department to City Manager Talley giving the vote of the Orange
City Council on June 14, 1977, opposing the development of apartments and duplexes
on the subject property as an intrusion into the single-family residential area. As
well, letter dated September 11, 1977 from the City of Garden Grove directed to Mr.
Netty at his request, indicated that any type of multiple-family dwelling on the
subject property would be incompatible with the surrounding area at the present
time, since the area south of Simmons, east of Haster in Garden Grove was zoned
R-l, Single-Family Residential, and designated as low density residential on the
City's General Plan. Before concluding, Mr. Harris reiterated the problems experi-
enced at Ponderosa Park which he considered would be further impacted by a multiple-
family project. He would rather see additional traffic generated by only 16 or 18
families, rather than 34 families proposed for the townhouse development.
A brief d~scussed then followed between Mr. Harris and Councilman Roth who asked
where the troublesome youngsters were coming from who frequented the park.
Mr. Harris explained that a number of young adults walked to the park from the
apartments on the north side of Orangewood in that area, first gathering on the
front lawn and parking area and, as evening developed, moved to the park area where
the recreation facilities were located. Councilman Roth's thrust was that the com-
plaint indicated the park was impacted by people living in apartments while, on
the other hand, the contention was that there were all single-family dwellings in
the area; the point being, there was a mix of votes in the area.
The additional following people spoke in opposition to the proposed project for the
below-listed reasons and related comments:
Mrs. Roselee Hindman, 501 East Wilken, Anaheim (she and her husband are police
officers in Santa Ana)..
1. The area was all residential, and apartments were north of the park and not
south.
2. The area to the north had an extremely high crime rate; the area they now
lived in was getting that way, also. Adding more apartments would add to the
problem.
3. The 300-unit apartment complex being built to the northwest of the subject
area would further impact the surrounding area.
4. Since Mr. Clow had contacted two or three adjacent homeowners to purchase
additional property, it was an indicated that he intended to build more apartments.
5. It was established in discussion with the Anaheim Parks and Recreation
Department that Ponderosa Park was serving a population much greater than that
ideal for park useage.
77-1230
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
6. The overcrowded conditions related to the high crime rate involving pornography,
child molestation, drugs, drunks and the like, and the Parks Department was well
aware of the situation at the park.
7. A traffic count taken on Simmons Avenue adjacent to the petitioner's property
in a 36-hour period revealed a flow of 2100 cars, indicating that the street was
already much too busy for a residential area, and a left-turn pocket on Haster, as
suggested, would not help at all because the problem was getting out onto Haster
from Simmons.
8. The Council must keep the density as low as possible in the area.
9. The rights of everyone in the area would be violated if the proposal was
approved.
Mr. Don Tomaiuolo, 116 West Simmons, Anaheim:
1. The residents of the area were tiring of having to fight the matter, and he
never expected the application would have come this far, especially since over 300
signatures were gathered in opposition within a very short period of time.
2. He was in sympathy with Mr. Clow because he could not do what he wanted with
his property, but the same was true of other property owners; zoning was established
to protect the interests and rights of the community.
3. The neighborhood was almost in the heart of the tourist area and, in his
opinion, just above the area bounded by Haster, Simmons and Orangewood, a "ghetto"
area was being established.
4. It would not be in the best interest of the community to add apartments and
multiple-units to an already overly populated area, thus resulting in an urban
situation as experienced by other cities where the danger of being mugged was
prevalent in just walking around.
Carolyn Miller, 2151 South Spinnaker Street, Anaheim:
1. The Clow's had supported efforts some time ago to keep apartments out of the
area, and they (the neighbors) helped to keep two-story apartments away from the
Clow property when they were proposed. Since the Clows no longer lived in the area,
it was now acceptable to propose that which they previously fought.
2. They wanted single-family residences built on the property.
James Stites, 2131 Spinnaker, Anaheim:
1. He collected over 150 signatures himself, and the extreme sentiment in the
neighborhood was for single-family residences.
2. M~ny residents felt that they were being deprived of their right of self-
determination and considered signing of the petition to be useless.
3. There were 300 to 400 people in the area who stood together over a number of
years to keep the neighborhood as single-family.
77-123]
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
4. If the townhouse project was built and the adjacent parcels (Mohler and Sissel)
were also sold to the Clow's, they were concerned about the consequences. They were
further concerned about the prospects of a developer coming in thereafter and buying
existing homes to build more apartments. The proliferation of multiple-family
dwellings had to be stopped some place.
Michael Vandemeir, 137 Simmons, Anaheim:
1. His children were not allowed to go to the park or to go out at night because
of the situation in the neighborhood.
2. Anything less than single-family dwellings would be a step in the wrong direction,
thus making the situation much worse.
J. E. Coker, 506 Cltffwood, Anaheim:
1. Single-family dwellings appear to be more consistent with the economic require-
ments and community requirements. Based upon those two aspects, he urged the
Council to favor single-family dwellings.
Before hearing those who wished to speak in favor of the project, Mr. Gerald
Ghelfi, 4542 West Simmons Avenue, Orange, wanted to offer a positive suggestion
in the manner recommending that the Anaheim City Council lend itself to the idea
of sending a letter to the Orange City Council and possibly that of Garden Grove,
asking the respective Councils and Police Departments to join in patroling
Simmons Street. At present, about the only patrol was by the Anaheim Police
Department, and Orange and Garden Grove patrols were rarely seen.
He also wanted to raise concerns on behalf of himself and other residents relative
to RS-5000 zoning, which was another possibility for the subject property. RS-5000
zoning would provide for two-story and the density would, therefore, be approxi-
mately equal in density to a townhouse project, but without the provisions provided
for in RM-4000, such as a walled community, which walls would also provide some
control over ingress and egress on Simmons Street, rather than separate driveways,
and recreational facilities. He wanted to call specific attention to the dangers
involved in RS-5000 as opposed to RM-4000.
Mrs. W. J. Mohler, who lives at the corner of Haster and Simmons, explained that
the Calhouns who live directly behind her and Carl Sissle, owner of property at
331 East Simmons, had looked at various townhome projects that appeared to be a
credit to their communities; walled-in, self-contained, quiet and pleasant, with
well-maintained landscaping. Speaking on behalf of these people, she asked that
the Council not lose sight of the fact that there were a few who wanted townhouses
considered for the subject property. They maintained that Mr. Clow had every
right to request zoning he considered beneficial to him.
In concluding, Mrs. Mohler commented that a road was to be built connecting the
Convention Center with the Stadium. When that occurred, she had been informed
that traffic on Haster would increase, and those who owned property along that
street would have to go commercial because they could not sell their frontage
property for homesites.
77-]212
--City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Carl Sissle, 1825 West Florida, Huntington Beach (formerly of 331 East Simmons),
stated that there were many advantages to townhouses, such as the one he was pre-
sently living in, amongst which they were clean, sanitary, and people maintained
them. He was in favor of RM-4000 zoning.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Sissle stated that the property he still
owned at 331 East Simmons was adjacent to the Clow property on the east Side.
(165' x 220') There was one dwelling unit on the property at present and he had
not yet rented it. He was allowing himself three months to completely move out.
Although he was approached by Mr. Clow relative to his property, there was nothing
concrete or final regarding the sale of his property to Mr. Clow.
In summation, Mr. Rowland stated that everyone had property rights and Mr. Clow's
should not be forgotten. He wanted to clarify for everyone in the Chamber that
in actuality, they were discussing single-family home ownership in a cluster
formation. A condominium referred to vesting of interest, and he wanted that
point made clear. When the medium density designation was placed on that property,
the Cities of Garden Grove and Orange were polled for their opinion and input into
the planning process, and they agreed with Anaheim's appraisal of the property. It
would not be an easy political decision to support whatever they wanted because
they had no voice in the matter at this time, since all their property was developed.
Mr. Rowland pointed out that other property in the area not presently developed to
the maximum allowed under the zone was going to change, subscribed clearly by
unpaved streets, such as that remaining on Simmons. Although that property was now
going to have an intent to reclass to RM-4000, everybody would have appeared in
the Chamber for the last time except if they were interested in the preliminary
tract plan that was presented, because the tract plan must be prepared for develop-
ment under RM-4000 zoning. Emotionally, he considered it a great scheme to
rezone the property to possibly RS-IO,O00, but it was obvious that today and in the
forseeable future, it would be an impossible situation.
Mr. Rowland then read from a letter submitted by some of the residents in the area
stating that it would be ideal to buy all the property and build $125,000 homes
thereon, but it was totally unreasonable and economically mad to do so, and
RM-4000 zoning would accomplish what they would like to see in their neighborhood.
Each other's interest had to be recognized and protected. Mr. Rowland stated that
assessment had to be respected. He further emphasized that they would be building
individual ownership houses that people could afford to buy in that area, and not
dreams with the sale price of $100,000 to $125,000 which, realistically, would not
sell in that area. If the City was going to do anything other than having Mr.
Clow pay his taxes and maintain his share of his neighbors taxes as well to
support the property until the distant future, he did not consider that to be a
realistic position either.
Mr. Rowland further stated that he was basically representing the project's
technical merits and took into consideration planning for the entire City, not
just a specific neighborhood. The property had long been scheduled for medium
density, and as a technical planning matter, it was still subject to that desig-
nation. The property directly to the north was two-story, multiple-family residen-
tial. Mr. Clow was being asked to build only single-family homes on his property,
which Mr. Rowland considered to be the worst kind of condemnation for that piece
of property, making it economically impossible to develop.
77-1233
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. William Clow, 2 Rue Vel Bonne, Newport Beach, stated that he had worked on the
project since February and has met with the homeowners to try and please them
within an economic framework. He could only reiterate that they tried to do the
best they could for the community and themselves, as well. He also commented that
to his knowledge they did not object to apartments in the past, as previously
stated.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Clow stated that the parcel being considered
today fronting on Haster Street was owned by him. Further, he had approached Mr.
Sissle relative to obtaining additional parcels immediately adjacent to the subject
property to the extent that he asked if Mr. Sissle was interested in going in with
him. Mr. Sissle did not indicate whether or not he would do so. Mr. Clow further
explained that there was no great advantage to him relative to the corner of Haster
and Simmons. It was not economically advantageous, nor was he buying those pieces
of property since not enough room would be available, especially after street
dedication, which would require 20 feet on each side. If the Council decided to
grant RM-4000, he would perhaps try to develop it as it would make a nicer
project.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
The Mayor explained that he called the public hearing because he was requested to
do so by the people living in the area after the Planning Commission submitted
their recommendation for RM-4000. They wanted to present their case to the Council
requesting single-family residences, preferably RS-7200 zoning. The project Mr.
Rowland presented was not an objectionable one, and in some instances, the Mayor
considered it to be a very good one. He was aware of the General Plan designation
and stated that the three Council Members referred to b~z Mr. Rowland having to do
with that medium density designation were Councilwoman kaywood, Councilman Seymour
and himself, who had the privilege of serving on the Planning Commission at that
time with Mr. Rowland. He (Rowland) knew that the General Plan designation was no
guarantee of any type of zoning, as well as no guarantee for a land speculator to
assume he would get a particular type of zoning to allow him to earn the most profit
from his land.
The Mayor continued that he did not consider the argument that building single-
family residences would be economically viable in the area to be a valid one.
Not only would that be a viable alternative, but also a good deal of money could be
made from such a development.
The Mayor concluded that he believed that a neighborhood such as the Haster-Simmons
area had a right to see vacant land in their neighborhood developed the way they
considered it most appropriate for them and their life style. Their existing
investment in the neighborhood should not be adversely affected by multiple-family
dwellings, and they seemed to feel strongly that their economic interests would be
adversely impacted, as well as their life style. He was thus prepared, first, to
offer the motion on the EIR and then to offer both resolutions denying
Reclassification No. 76-77-54 and 76-77-55 for RM-4000 zoning, but he would be
willing to offer those resolutions for approval under RS-7200 zoning if Messrs.
Rowland and Clow wished to do so. There was no response.
77~-1234
City Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will
have no significant effect on the environment, since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for medium density residential land uses, commen-
surate with the proposal and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare
an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Thom offered the following resolutions for adoption: Resolution No.
77R-727 and 77R-729 denying Reclassification Nos. 76-77-54 and 76-77-55 and
Resolution Nos. 77R-728 and 77R-730 denying Variance Nos. 2936 and 2937, as
recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood explained that in July when the
controversy over the proposed apartments began with the Planning Commission meeting,
the Council was requested by the neighborhood to speak to the residents. She and
Councilman Seymour did so and it was confirmed the residents' basic complaint was
their strong opposition to apartments. They wanted home ownership in their older,
but very well-kept neighborhood. There was also a concern over two-story homes.
If they were now talking in terms of RS-7200, in her opinion, this was not a viable
alternative. Considering the RS-6000 zoning and apartments in the surrounding
area, there was no way lower density could be put there than what already existed.
Thus, the alternative would be RS-5000 lots which, in actuality, represented
greater density because of the lack of recreational facilities that would normally
be included in a condominium project.
Everyone stated how badly the park was impacted, and she knew this to be true from
sitting on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Th'ere were very grave problems at
Ponderosa Park. With a condominium project, there would be no further impact;
single-family residences or apartments would have a much greater impact. From all
the discussions that took place, she was pleased with the togetherness that was
displayed among the residents. Thereafter, however, she contended that political
"shenanigans" took place, and today in the Chamber there was a turn-about of the
togetherness and dissention was evident among neighbors.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that Mr. Netty called her a number of times and
contradicted himself. There was great disillusionment with Mr. Clow and the
development of his property was going to matter long into the future. She had
considered the pros and cons and that which would be best for the neighborhood
and the City and concluded there would be a much better living environment for those
living in the neighborhood now and those coming into it with a condominium project
in an RM-4000 zone. For that reason and her foregoing explanation, she would
oppose the proposed resolutions.
Councilman Seymour explained that the art of planning and zoning in the city or
the county was not a precise means for developing a community because it was a
political process with political pressures exerted on both sides--in this case,
the Clow's right to develop and the homeowner's right to protect what they felt
was in their best interest. The General Plan then became subject to negotiation,
just as the residents had been negotiating with Mr. Clow and Rowland, and then
subject to further negotiation, depending on three of the five Council Members.
Setting the economic question aside, Councilman Seymour did not believe the sub-
ject property planning-wise should be developed into RS-7200 lots, since it was
77-1235
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
surrounded on three sides by apartments. Therefore, he considered it unreasonable
to expect that the property should totally be zoned into RS-7200. If he lived on
Simmons or streets adjacent thereto, he, too, would be concerned about density and
traffic. However, he was of the opinion that single-family residences would be
appropriate along Simmons, but moving northerly along the property and tying that
into the property Mr. Clow owned on Haster Street, some type of transitional use
would be in order. If that was to be low-density condominium as proposed, he would
want to give it a great deal of consideration. He would support the Mayor's pro-
posed resolutions and deny the condominiums, but he did not want to mislead the
people in the Chamber into thinking the property would all be developed as single-
family residential. He would not be party to that because they would ultimately
again be petitioning the Council. If the resolutions carried, he would be in
favor of referring the subject property and its proper development back to the
Planning Commission to ask for a mix of uses, single-family as well as some
type of transitional residential development.
Councilman Roth stated he would support the resolutions partially and deny both
reclassifications at this time. However, he was opposed to solid RS-7200 zoning
on the entire parcel because of the economical situation. He was aware that the
density in the area was too high and he was concerned about the park, but he did
not feel that all apartment dwellers were the "bad guys" in the City and police
records did not indicate that to be so. He also suggested the possibility of a mix
on the property of RS-7200 and the balance RS-5000. However, the opposition to
RM-4000 might be a mistake because there were amenities that would be lost, par-
ticularly in the ongoing management service provided relative to landscaping, watering,
trash, etc., and there should be additional thinking about the possibility of
RM-4000 zoning by the homeowners.
Councilman Kott stated that basically, he considered the project to be a good one,
but when a show of people such as that evidenced by those in attendance who felt the
project would impact them in any way, he was impressed. He also maintained that the
few people who were in favor of the project owned adjacent properties and that was
a significant factor to consider. He did not have any feelings about political
"shenanigans" taking place on the matter but, instead, a display of the American
way.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolutions offered by Councilman Thom. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-727: 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. (76-77-54)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-728: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2936.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-729: 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. (76-77-55)
77-1236
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-730: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2937.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-727 through 77R-730, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, Tentative Tract No. 9815
for a 12-lot, 43-unit subdivision was denied. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour proposed a motion directing the City Planning Commission to
review the subject property considering a mix of low densities, and, thereafter,
make a recommendation to the Council for approval and subsequent amendment to
the General Plan.
The Mayor stated he could support that if Councilman Seymour was speaking about
a low density mix of RS-7200 and RS-5000, which were both single-family designa-
tions, as Councilman Roth suggested, but he could not support a townhouse concept
in view of the residents' adamant stand against it.
Councilman Seymour indicated he would be willing to look at an entire RS-7200 or
an entire RS-5000 designation, but not foreclose the possibility of the alternative
of a mix of single-family, as well as low-density condominium development.
Councilman Kott contended it was the petitioner's responsibility to approach
whatever body necessary with whatever plan he may devise and again meet with the
homeo~mers to get their approval. He was not in a position to cast a vote for a
mix of any type.
Councilman Seymour explained that since the Council action today reversed what the
General Plan designated, that they now had a responsibility to tell everyone in
that area through public hearings and an amendment to the General Plan what the
designation was going to be, thus declaring the use of the property. He could not
support foreclosure of the possibility of any alternative other than single-family
residential.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Planning
Commission was instructed to re-evaluate the General Plan designation for the
subject property. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (4:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilmen Seymour and Kott. (4:55 P.M.)
77-1237
C__iity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 54-55-40 - AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS: Appli-
cation by Brookhurst Shopping Center requesting amendment of Condition Nos. 7 and
9 of Resolution No. 2900, proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL on
property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Brookhurst Street, to
comply with conditions of approval of Variance No. 2883.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested amendment
deleting Condition Nos. 7 and 9, as requested.
Mr. Schwartze described the location and surrounding land uses. He outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the
City Planning Commission.
Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (4:58 P.M.)
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Harry McKlusky, 9732 Mystic, asked for clarification relative to Condition
Nos. 7 and 9.
Mr. Schwartze explained that the deletion of those conditions, as requested by the
applicant, was necessary to finalize zoning on the property. Condition No. 7
stated that a minimum of 75% of said property, exclusive of streets, is to be
maintained for customer and service parking. Condition No. 9 stated that these
restrictions shall expire 25 years from date hereof.
Councilman Kott entered the Council Chamber. (5:00 P.M.)
Mr. McKlusky then inquired as to what the applicant planned to do with the property
at this time, since he had been concerned about the matter for the last 22 years
during which time he emphasized the vacant property was nothing but a dump. He
then elaborated on the problems experienced since he moved into his home in 1955,
relative to trash, weeds, and motorcycles and racecars speeding through the vacant
area. He had never been able to obtain any satisfaction from the company who owned
the property, Arnold Construction, regarding these problems.
Following a discussion with Council and staff, Mr. McKlusky was assured that since
the zoning designated Light Commercial, apartment houses would not be built there,
but only stores, retail shops or any commercial building relating to commercial
zoning, as long as the developer conformed to site development standards. Develop-
ment would undoubtedly be a continuation of the shopping center presently existing
on the southeast portion of the property.
Mr. McKlusky agreed that such development would be 100% better than conditions now
existing on the property.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-731 for adoption deleting Conditions
Nos. 7 and 9 from Resolution No. 2900, as requested by the applicant Refer to
Resolution Book. '
77- ! 238
C_~itM Hall. F.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-731: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2900 BY DELETING CONDITION NOS. 7 AND 9 THEREFROM.
(54-55-40, CL)
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-731 duly passed and adopted.
123: AMENDMENT OF SERVICES CONTRACT WITH GALBRAITH AND GREEN, INC.: Assistant
City Manager William T. Hopkins explained first that the $2,000 for preparation
of the official plan document was renegotiated out of the amendment to the subject
agreement, the $1,980 worth of interest accumulated on monies paid by the City would
be recovered, and, relative to peer review, information was received from the Orange
County Medical Association as to charges made for that type of service.
Councilman Kott was presently only concerned with the interest that was due and
since it actually belonged to the City, he wanted to know why an agreement had to
be executed to get it back.
Mr. Hopkins explained that in order to get a definite commitment from Galbraith
and Green, it was considered to be in the best interest of the City to have the
item included in the agreement to confirm it did belong to the City and thus re-
solve any further question about it. Galbraith and Green agreed to write it into
the agreement.
Councilman Kott was further concerned over the fact that the agreement stipulated
Galbraith and Green agreed the interest belonged to the City only if the City con-
tinued to do business with them. Thus, the return of the interest was dependent
upon execution of the agreement. He asked for confirmation by the City Attorney.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the interest was an item of dispute and that the
City was requested to include the matter in order to preclude any further questions.
He did not believe, however, that threats or anything of that nature were involved.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-732 for adoption. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-732: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND GALBRAITH
& GREEN, INC. FOR ADMINISTRATION OF CLIAMS UNDER THE CITY'S GROUP MEDICAL INSURANCE
PLAN.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-732 duly passed and adopted.
77-1239
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - NINE ADDITIONAL THREE-PHASE SWITCHES - BID NO. 3313:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of S & C
Electric Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $36,991.88,
including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated
November 1, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
169: PRESENTATION - WIDENING OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD: The City Clerk explained
that Mary Dinndorf of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association had to leave the
Chamber but left a petition with 524 signatures protesting the widening of Santa Ana
Canyon Road.
The Mayor referred to a report dated November 1, 1977 from the City Engineer recom-
mending the Council hold a public meeting on the proposed widening projects.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, consideration of the
proposed widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road was scheduled for public meeting on
November 22, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
150: BOWERS MUSEUM: Mr. Reilly Rhodes, Museum Director, briefed the Council on
the conceptual plan for expansion of the Bowers Museum soliciting Anaheim's en-
dorsement of an Orange County Museum concept. Thereby, the Bowers Museum would
become the central County museum facility thus providing the vehicle through which
other museums throughout the County as well as universities, school districts,
historic societies and the like could work together in order to further museum
activity. The expansion of Bowers was in his interest because it was supported by
the City of Santa Ana. However, it could not continue to solely exist in that fashion
and had not existed that way for some time.
Upon questioning by Councilman Kott, Mr. Rhodes continued that in order for Orange
County to get their fair share of government funding in relation to the ratio of
people living in the area, the museum program had to be implemented on a unified
County basis to capture the necessary funds. Personal involvement of private
citizens and private industry was also necessary but such participation was unlikely
on a small level because it was not viewed as a high enough priority. Thus, the
program had to be accelerated. He emphasized he was not asking for funds but support
of the concept. He stated if cultural activities were going to exist at the level
of quality they should for a population of 2 million, it was going to have to develop
under some system.
Councilman Seymour asked if Mr. Rhodes had contacted representatives of the cultural
and historical interests in the City.
Mr. Rhodes explained that he had spoken to service groups involved in the Orange
County Arts Alliance, whose cultural organizations had representatives from Anaheim.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Rhodes then discussed the amount of Anaheim
history housed in the Bowers Museum as well as that which had been lost because
of the non-existence of an historical museum in Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood
also explained that the Women's Division of the Chamber of Commerce in one of its
committees was working with other groups with the goal in mind of establishing such
a museum in Anaheim. It was her opinion that support of the proposed concept would
enhance both programs. She thereupon moved that the City support the conceptual
plan of the Bowers Museum becoming a County museum. The motion died for lack of a
second.
77-]240
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated that the thrust of Councilman Seymour's question to Mr. Rhodes
reflected his (Seymour's) doubts as to support of the proposed concept by known
Anaheim cultural and historic groups. He, too, wanted input and reassurance from
these groups that they also supported the concept before committing official
support.
Councilman Seymour explained there could be a competitiveness for funds and although
he supported the concept, without first obtaining the endorsement of the City's
cultural organizations, he maintained the Council would be subject to strong
criticism.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that those who had spoken to her were in favor of the
concept.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, consideration for the
endorsement of a conceptual plan for the expansion and development of Bowers
Museum and the request for the support thereof, was continued for two weeks in
order to obtain input and recommendations from various cultural groups and individuals
in the City. MOTION CARRIED.
114: PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE: Mr. Hal Parker, Chairman of
the Committee, explained that word was received that an official delegation from
Mito, Japan was visiting Anaheim November 17 and 18, 1977, headed by Mayor Wada and 10
members of the Mito City Council. An official reception dinner was planned at the
Anaheim Stadium Club for Thursday evening, November 17, 1977, and, in addition to
the Council Members, Orange County Supervisor Ralph Clark was invited to attend,
at which time greetings and gifts would be exchanged. On Friday morning, November 18,
1977, a dedication service was planned at the Anaheim Shores development dedicating
a bridge at Mito Way, designed after a Japanese bridge in Kioto, Japan.
Mr. Parker further explained that a budget had been prepared for the Council's
consideration and approval in the amount of $1,500, just as last year. If that
budget was exceeded, they would seek support from local businessmen. Also, they
had a great deal of concern as to how to establish a Sister City Committee and
make it self-sustaining and not compete with any other programs in the City. He
had spoken to Leta Archer at the Anaheim Cultural Arts Center about the possibility
of their taking the Sister City Committee under their program. The mmtter was to
be a subject of discussion at a forthcoming board meeting. He wanted Council's
expression as to whether or not that was the way to pursue the matter as well as
permission to return to the Council specifically on that matter sometime in the
future.
Councilman Seymour explained that the Cultural Arts Foundation was in the process
of attempting to create the "umbrella" concept bringing all groups involved in
Culture and the Arts under one organization which was projected to take place
approximately January or February if, in fact, such a concept could be implemented.
He, therefore, suggested that Mr. Parker come back to the Council after the first
of the year relative to the Sister City Committee.
The Mayor confirmed that the Council would be making a decision on the "umbrella"
agency sometime after the first of the year and any action before that time relative
to the committee would be premature.
77-1241
--City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth recommended that since the Council decided to become involved
in the Sister City Program, it was apparent there would be a continuation of the
program annually. Therefore, the City should budget for such a contingency.
The Mayor stated that such a move would perhaps be a good idea and if the "umbrella"
concept was adopted, it could be part of that budget.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to support the request of the Sister City Committee
and authorize an expenditure not to exceed $1,500 from the Community Promotional
Fund. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Parker who would be in
charge of the budget.
Mr. Parker stated that as Chairman of the Committee, he would be in charge as well
as the 21 members of the Committee who were representatives of various service
groups in the community, the Chamber, and Mr. Griffith from the Library.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mr. Parker explained they had been advised that between
Christmas and New Year~, a group would be visiting from the International Cultural
Exchange Association. Although they were not part of the official Sister City
Program, the Committee definitely felt obligated to extend certain courtesies but
not any major dinner or reception unless the Council felt it was warranted. At
present, two delegations to Mito from Anaheim were planned in 1978 since no
delegations visited in 1977, one the later part of April and the second in
August. It was hoped that many Anaheim teachers would make the trip in August
and there were indications that some teachers were interested in coming here from
Japan at their expense to work for approximately a month. An exchange committee
was presently working on such exchange programs.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS AND WAIVER OF PARADE PERMIT FEE:
Councilman Kott moved to approve the application of the National Foundation--March
of Dimes, for door-to-door solicitation of funds for the March of Dimes Third Annual
Bike/Hike benefit.
A brief discussion followed relative to the requested waiver of the $25 fee for a
parade permit as part of the subject application, which fee had been waived the
previous year. Although Councilman Kott agreed in principle with the request, he
did not wish to incorporate the waiver of the fee in his motion. He noted the
recommendation from the City Attorney that the request for the waiver of the fee
be denied because it was not in the nature of a tax. He also noted the seeming
double standard since it was a Council Policy to deny door-to-door solicitation
if an organization was not Anaheim based. Said motion died for lack of a second.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Application for
Solicitation of Charity Funds for the National Foundation--March of Dimes, including
waiver of the Parade Permit Fee was approved Councilman Kott voted "No"
CARRIED. · . MOTION
77-124'~
C__ity Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Councilman Kott moved to approve the Appli-
cation for Public Fireworks Display Permit filed by Astro Pyrotechnics for Stadium
Motor Sports Corporation to discharge fireworks at Anaheim Stadium on November 12,
1977, at 7:45 and 10:00 P.M. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour noted that the application form did not
indicate whether or not the Fire Chief approved or denied the subject application.
He would vote for approval but wanted that recommendation.
Councilman Kott thereupon incorporated as part of his motion that approval was
subject to the approval of the Fire Chief.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No"
MOTION CARRIED. '
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Fire Chief or
Fire Marshal was instructed to note on all future Fireworks Display Permit Appli-
cations whether approval or denial was recommended and why. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Thom, 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 Stephen C. Marpet, Attorney for Timothy Lee Stuck, a minor,
for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a cement rope-holder
falling at Anaheim Stadium on or about August 27, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Jack Gerald Walstead for personal damages purportedly
sustained as a result of his false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation and
related tortious acts on or about September 30, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Rose Mae Williams for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a fall in a parking lot at Lemon and Broadway on or
about October 10, 1977.
d. Claim submitted by Detective Vincent L. Howard, #61, for loss of personal
property purportedly sustained as a result of theft from the trunk of a city-owned
vehicle on or about October 12, 1977.
e. Claim submitted by Brian R. Magana, Attorney, for Isabel O'Leary, Kathleen
O'Leary and Jerry John O'Leary, for personal damages purportedly sustained as a
result of injuries and subsequent death of Walter J. O'Leary on or about July 26,
1977.
77-1243
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Ronald J. Klopfer for vehicle damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a collision with a city-owned backhoe (Water Department) in Anaheim
Hills on or about October 10, 1977.
g. Claim submitted by West Coast Auto Wholesale for vehicle damages purportedly
sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about
September 10, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of October 19, 1977.
b. 105: Co~unity Services Board - Corrected Minutes of September 22, 1977 and
Minutes of October 13, 1977.
c. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of October 11, 1977.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of June 16 and July 21, 1977.
e. 105: Monthly report for September 1977 - Customer Service.
f. 175: Before the PUC, Application No. 57639 of Southern California Gas Company
for authority to increase rates charged by it for gas service.
3. i08: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit for a cocktail table-type pinball machine at each of
the following locations: Jack Murphy's, 1233 South Brookhurst; Bavarian Inn, 2820
West Ball Road, and Never On Sunday, 2810 West Lincoln Avenue. (Joseph E. Stasch,
applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
139 & 148: SUPPORT OF SB 346 - PERIPHERAL CANAL: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, a Resolution of Support from the City of Anaheim
on SB 346 regarding construction of the Peripheral Canal was approved as recommended
in a letter dated October 17, 1977, from Howard H. Hawkins, Chairman of the Metro-
politan Water District of Southern California. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 77R-733
through 77R-735, 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-733: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Fredericks
Development Corporation; Frank J. Stueckle, et ux.; Donald T. Miller, et al.;
Ball Road 863 L.T.D.; Wesley Joe Hess; Steven E. Craig, et al.; Stephen R.
Curcie, et al.; The Southland Corporation; Nellie K. McMunn; Zora E. Field;
Henry J. Plouffe, et ux.; Elroy F. Oldenburg, et ux.; Jose Marie Sandoval et ux.;
Cecil C. Whitfield, et ux.) '
77- ! 244
--City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
167: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-734: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF PACIFICO AVENUE AND STATE
COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-712-16-0812;
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 December 1, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-735: 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: PENHALL WAY STREET IMPROVEMENT,
E/O CRESCENT WAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WORK ORDER NO. 803-A, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-
708-16-0803. (Sully-Miller Contracting 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 Nos. 77R-733 through 77R-735, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 9933 AND REVISION TO CONDITION NO. 5: Developer, Wills
Development Corporation of Tustin; Tract located on the north side of Canyon Rim
Road, west of Serrano Avenue, containing 25 RM-4000 proposed zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, Condition No. 5
of the approved Tentative Map was revised to read as follows: "That the
covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by
the City Attorney's office and City Engineer prior to City Council approval of
the Final Tract Map and further, that the approved covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits.", as recom-
mended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated November 2, 1977. MOTION
CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
9933, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated November 2, 1977.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3783: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3783 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3783: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
3767, NUNC PRO TUNC. (relating to conditional use permits)
77-1245
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 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 No. 3783 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3784: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3784 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3784: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-100(3), CL)
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. 3784 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3785: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3785 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3785: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-10, CL)
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. 3785 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3786 THROUGH 3788: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3786
through 3788, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3786: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(13), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3787: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9(8), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3788: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (54-55-40, CL)
119: LETTER OF CONDOLENCE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by
Councilman Seymour, staff was directed to prepare a letter of condolence to Mr.
Mel Gauer on the passing of his wife, Olive, to be signed by all Council Members.
MOTION CARRIED.
77-1246
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
147: LANDFILL OPERATIONS AND TRASH TRANSFER STATIONS: Councilman Seymour explained
that relative to the subject, on July 27, 1977, the Council directed a letter to
the Orange County Board of Supervisors encouraging them to budget money for equip-
ment both to haul the trash to the landfill dump site as well as some additional
equipment for the sites themselves. The problem brought to the Council's attention
at that time was the current transfer and dump sites were not being used to anywhere
near capacity resulting in an additional expense of hauling to dump sites and
landfills further distant from the City's locality and thus driving up the price
of collection of trash. Councilman Seymour now wanted to reconfirm the City's
position on the matter while at the same time being more specific. The Board
of Supervisors was considering expending $500,000 out of their contingency fund
for landfill equipment as well as $540,000 out of General Revenue Sharing Funds
to permit the purchase of six rigs, one for each of the stations. He thereupon
moved that a letter signed by the Mayor be sent to Orange County Supervisor Ralph
Clark supporting the actions as articulated. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
114: PERMISSION TO LEAVE STATE FOR 90 DAYS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded
by Councilman Roth, permission was granted to Councilman Seymour to leave the State
for 90 days. MOTION CARRIED.
108: CAMELOT-ANAHEIM GAMING PREMISES PERMIT - ABSTENTION FROM DISCUSSION AND
VOTING: Councilman Roth explained that on the advice of the City Attorney, he
would abstain from all discussion and voting at the scheduled night re-hearing
of the Order to Show Cause why a Gaming Premises Permit should not be terminated
on Camelot-Anaheim. He was not present at the original meeting because of his
attendance at the Annual League of Cities Conference in San Francisco and the re-
hearing, to his understanding, would be a supplement of evidence.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the hearing would be a matter of reconsideration
and Councilman Roth's vote would be subject to challenge because he was not at the
original hearing.
158: MATLOW-KENNEDY PROPOSAL: Councilman Roth referred to previous meetings
wherein the sale of 18.8 acres to the Matlow-Kennedy Corporation was discussed.
At the last such meeting, he requested the City Attorney to submit corporate and
financial information on all the corporations involved. To date, the information
had not been received and he wanted assurance that all such documentation would be
submitted before the matter again came before the Council so that they would be
fully apprised of the entities with which they were dealing.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the documentation had been requested but not
yet received. However, it was in process. He did have the financial data and the
additional information was promised by mail during the week. He confirmed that the
data presently in his possession would be submitted to the Council no later than
Friday, November 11, 1977.
In answer to Councilman Kott, the City Clerk stated that one other proposal had
been submitted this date on the property by Sunset Construction.
RECESS: Councilman Thom moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. for a re-hearing on an Order
to Show Cause why a Gaming Premises Permit at 2232 West Sequoia Avenue, Camelot-
Anaheim should not be terminated. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (5:42 P.M.)
77-1247
City Hall~ Ammheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (7:00 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ANAHEIM POLICE DETECTIVES: Lon Erickson and Jim Flan~nini
108: PUBLIC HEARING - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - GAMING PREMISES PERMIT CAMELOT-ANAHEIM
REHEARING: In accordance with Council Policy No. 105, the request of Mr. Ira Riskin,
Attorney for Joseph London, dated September 30, 1977, for a rehearing of the Order
to Show Cause why the Gaming Presises Permit for Camelot-Anaheim, 2232 West Sequoia
Avenue, should not be revoked was scheduled at this date and time.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that Mr. London would be represented by Mr. Robert
Tourtelot of the firm of Magaram, Riskin, Wayne and Minikes. Mr. Tourtelot has
requested this opportunity to present witnesses for testimony who were not at the
first public hearing. This testimony would not be bound by direct rules of evidence,
but under the Evidence Code, Section 776, a party may call opposing witnesses and
examine them as if under cross-examination. It was Mr. Hopkins' understanding that
this would be the procedure followed after which, if the Council wished to allow
any other persons in the Council Chamber to speak, with appropriate time limitations,
they could be heard in the order of first those favoring action proposed to revoke
the Gaming Premises Permit and then who oppose the action. Ail witnesses will be
sworn in by the City Clerk.
Mr. Tourtelot stated that because one of the findings made by the City Council at
the Order to Show Cause hearing held September 27, 1977, indicated there were
activities being carried on at Camelot-Anaheim which were detrimental to the health
and welfare of the citizens and residents of Anaheim, Mr. London would like to have
some individuals speak as to their impressions of the activities at the card club
since March 1977.
Mr. Tourtelot then called for any individuals who wished to be examined as to their
knowledge or lack of knowledge at the Camelot-Anaheim which might be detrimental
to the citizens of Anaheim.
Mrs. Francis Lewis, 5452 Mantan Avenue, Woodland Hills, was sworn in by the City
Clerk and testified that the only connection she has had with the Camelot-Anaheim
club is that she and her husband occasionally attend to play cards, the last time
being 7 to 8 months ago; that she was not aware of any arrests; that she had not
observed any firearms on or about the premises; and that she is in favor of the
business continuing because she likes to play pan. In reply to additional questions,
Mrs. Lewis explained that she had no knowledge of any illegal activities defined
as either threats to Mr. London or physical attacks. She further explained that she
knew Mr. Joe London to be the owner of the club.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mrs. Lewis advised that she first heard of the
Camelot-Anaheim Card Club from some friends who live in Beverly Hills.
77-1248
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. John Elliott, 1043 Lamark Lane, was sworn in by the City Clerk and testified
that he is currently employed at the club as a floorman; that he has worked there
continuously since June 13, 1977, and prior to that had been playing cards at the
club for 6 to 8 months; that he was aware of the arrests made at Camelot-Anaheim
in March of 1977, but that he was not aware as to the reason for the arrests; that
he knew of no activities at the club which he considered to be detrimental to
residents of Anaheim; and that he had not observed any firearms since the date of
the arrests.
Mr. Elliott stated that he had seen firearms prior to March of 1977, outside of
the club in a car, the only guns he viewed inside were those of the security guards.
He stated that he is in favor of the club continuing, not only as an employee but
also because he believes the "pedestrian player" who comes in receives good treatment.
When asked to compare his impressions of both Camelot-Anaheim and the other existing
card club in the City, the Anaheim Recreation Club, Mr. Elliott stated he would not
say anything detrimental about either of the two.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Elliott explained the particulars of his
becoming employed at Camelot-Anaheim. He advised that Mr. London, to his knowledge,
was the owner since March of 1977, but prior to that time things were very confused.
Mr. Maurice Sklarew, 7196 E1 Poste Drive, Buena Park, was sworn in by the City
Clerk and stated that he is on the Transportation Commission in the City of Buena
Park and has held that position for the past 6 months and lived there for 18 years;
that he has been a card player for 21 years. Questioned about his relationship
with the Camelot-Anaheim, Mr. Sklarew testified that he was one of the first employees
and is still currently employed there part-time as a boardman and floorman; he
related that he was not in agreement with Mrs. Baylos' statement, as given at the
hearing September 27, 1977, and further, relayed comments attributed to Mrs. Baylos
outside of the meeting that evening in which she expressed a desire to "get" Joe
London. Mr. Sklarew also replied, in response to Mr. Tourtelot's request for a
comparison of the atmosphere and conduct in Camelot-Anaheim and Anaheim Recreation,
that since March 1977, the Camelot-Anaheim Club is much calmer; that there has been
a complete turn-around. In further response to Mr. Tourtelot, Mr. Sklarew testified
that he has not observed activities at Camelot-Anaheim since March 1977, which he
would consider to be illegal, immoral or which may be detrimental to the citizens of
Anaheim. Additionally, he noted that, in his opinion, Mr. London is the boss at
Camelot-Anaheim.
When asked whether he knew of any other individuals who since March of 1977 acted
as though they had management or leadership positions, Councilman Seymour interjected
how Mr. Sklarew would have answered this question prior to March of 1977.
Mr. Sklarew stated that prior to that time, there was such a turmoil in the club
that he would not be able to give an answer. He also indicated that he had not
overheard any conversations nor seen any paperwork indicating for certain who was
the owner of the Camelot-Anaheim Club.
At the conclusion of the examination, the City Attorney indicated he had no questions.
The City Council had no questions.
77-1249
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Maxwell Herman, 2329 Daphne Place, Fullerton, was sworn in and related that
his relationship with the Camelot-Anaheim is only that he occasionally plays
cards at the establishment and has done so for approximately 8 months.
Mr. Tourtelot inquired whether Mr. Herman had also played at card clubs in
Gardena and having received an affirmative answer, asked him to describe and
compare the atmosphere of the Camelot-Anaheim Club to those in Gardena.
Mayor Thom objected to this line of questioning noting that the operation of
card clubs in the City of Gardena was not of interest to the City Council, that
their concern was with the City of Anaheim only.
Mr. Tourtelot explained that activities described as "detrimental" to the citizens
and residents of Anaheim have been attributed to the Camelot-Anaheim and therefore
he felt it would be credible evidence to place on the record what activities some
other citizens believe are or are not detrimental.
Mayor Thom replied that inasmuch as the City of Gardena is well known for its
poker-type card establishments and the City of Anaheim does not permit poker,
he could not see any relativity to the comparison. If the City of Gardena only
allowed pan, bridge and gin rummy, then perhaps there might be some value to
the comparison.
Mr. Tourtelot continued this line of questioning and Mr. Herman stated that the
difference between the Camelot-Anaheim Club and those in Gardena would be summed
up by the statement that he would not worry about leaving his wife alone to play
cards at the Camelot-Anaheim. Additionally, he testified that he had not observed
any activities which he considered to be illegal or immoral, that the only firearms
he had seen were those worn by the guards; that he believed the club should be
allowed to remain in business as it is a nice, friendly place to play cards; that
the individual who appears to be the boss of the Camelot Club is Joe London.
There were no questions from the City Attorney or City Council.
Mr. Bill Flax, 1540 West Ball Road, was sworn in and testified that he has lived
in Anaheim since 1961; that he is a retired retail store manager and that he has
frequented the Camelot-Anaheim Card Club 2 or 3 times per week in the past 13 months;
that he was not aware of the arrests made at the club and had not observed any
activities there which he would consider illegal nor did he observe any activities
which he felt would be detrimental to his own welfare or that of the citizens of
Anaheim; that he is in favor of the Council permitting the club to remain in opera-
tion because he enjoys playing cards there and finds the others who use the club
to be very congenial and friendly. Mr. Flax added that the number of people who
attend the club attest to its popularity, and further commented that he believes
80 percent of those in attendance at the club are residents of this area.
In response to Mr. Tourtelot's questions, Mr. F1 ax also testified that as far as
he was aware, Mr. Joe London was the boss of the club and he has not observed any
other individual asserting an ownership interest or a voice in the actual manage-
ment.
77-1250
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
There were no questions from the City Attorney or City Council.
Mrs. Tillie Flax, 1540 West Ball Road, was sworn in and testified that she has
also lived in Anaheim since 1961; that she has never had any prior conversations
with Mr. Tourtelot; that she has played pan at Camelot-Anaheim since its opening
and before that had played at the Anaheim Recreation Club; that she has since
switched and does the majority of her card playing at Camelot-Anaheim because
this is where her friends go; that she had not observed any activities at the
Camelot-Anaheim which she would consider to be illegal, immoral or offensive;
and that Mr. Joe London is the owner to her knowledge and no other individuals
indicated to her that they had an ownership in the Camelot-Anaheim. In conclusion,
Mrs. Flax also stated that she was in favor of the Camelot-Anaheim continuing in
business as she enjoys playing cards and would otherwise have to drive to Elsinore
to play.
The City Attorney and City Council had no further questions.
Mr. Irving Weinholtz, 1540 West Ball Road, was sworn in and stated that he is not
a long-time resident of Anaheim but has lived in Orange County for 15 years, having
recently moved to his Anaheim address from Cypress, California; that he is a retired
automobile dealer; that he has played cards at the Camelot-Anaheim Club since it
opened; that he has not observed any activities detrimental, illegal, immoral or
offensive at the Camelot Card Club; that he is in favor of its continuance as it
provides a convenient location and friendly atmosphere in which to meet friends
and play cards; that he knows Joe London to be the owner and has not heard about
any other individual asserting ownership. When asked to compare his experiences
at Anaheim Recreation Club with those at Camelot-Anaheim, Mr. Weinholtz indicated
that he had enjoyed playing cards at both places and that they attend the Camelot
Club because their friends also congregate there.
There were no questions from the City Attorney.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Weinholtz described that he had played
regularly at the Anaheim Recreation Card Club and that the primary difference
between that operation and Camelot-Anaheim was that the former does not get
enough play, that it is older and smaller and not as nice, and that he felt the
Camelot-Anaheim Club was a better operation. In addition, he explained that
there are security guards with sidearms on duty at the Camelot-Anaheim whereas
there are not at the Anaheim Recreation Club.
Mayor Thom speculated that perhaps the reason for this is that the action at the
Camelot is faster and the stakes higher.
Mr. Weinholtz was of the opinion that security guards should be stationed any place
where people are playing cards; that it is a good idea and also provides security
for the patrons when going to their cars.
Mr. Tourtelot pointed out that there are security guards with sidearms visible in
banks throughout Orange County and this does not cause citizens to feel activities
detrimental to them are being carried on at these institutions.
77-1251
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour inquired whether Mr. Weinholtz had ever played cards in a
friendly home game at which a security guard was present, to which Mr. Weinholtz
replied no.
Mr. Tourtelot objected to Councilman Seymour's question and the Mayor overruled
his objection.
Mr. Tourtelot called his next witness, Mrs. Esther Weinholtz, whereupon the Mayor
inquired whether or it would not be easier to stipulate, for the record, that these
individuals would come forth and answer the same questions in the same manner.
Mr. Tourtelot stated that he has never talked to these individuals before; that
their testimony is quite credible as none of them has had a dispute or a law suit
with Mr. London and contended that accumulation of evidence was not discouraged
by the City Council at the September 27th hearing. However, if the City Council
wished them to stipulate that these individuals would say favorable things towards
the Camelot-Anaheim, Mr. Tourtelot stated he would so stipulate.
Mr. Hopkins interjected that this hearing was scheduled at the request of Mr. Riskin
for the purpose of hearing examination of certain witnesses who were not present
at the original hearing.
Mayor Thom stated that he had no problem with the witnesses coming forward to speak,
but just thought the entire procedure might be expedited and he would leave the
decision to Mr. Tourtelot.
Mr. Tourtelot stated that under the circumstances, he felt constrained from presenting
any additional witnesses and further commented that although this was supposed to
be a quasi-judicial hearing, in his opinion, it more closely represented the
antithesis of that situation.
Mayor Thom reminded Mr. Tourtelot that this was a City Council public hearing and
not a court of law.
Mr. Hopkins reiterated to Mr. Tourtelot that this hearing was called to allow him
to present those witnesses he felt he did not have the opportunity to present be-
fore and also under the normal provisions of the Evidence Code, Mr. Tourtelot could
now call any other witnesses he so desired for cross-examination since he felt he
had not had this opportunity before. He asked Mr. Tourtelot whether he wished to
call any other witnesses at all at this-time as hostile witnesses or otherwise.
Mr. Tourtelot responded that no indication was given him that the City Council
would reverse its position to allow Counsel for Mr. London to cross-examine
individuals who came up to speak as members of the public at the September 27th
hearing. He indicated that he would like to cross-examine some individuals who
are present but in order to be effective, i.e., to demonstrate a lack of credibility
to their testimony, he felt this would take him two hours for each witness.
Mayor Thom reminded Mr. Tourtelot that this was a City Council hearing and not a
court of law and that his request for two hours per witness was unrealistic.
77-1252
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hopkins reiterated that this rehearing was granted so that Mr. Riskin, Mr.
Tourtelot or Mr. Chandler could call any witnesses they so desire and this was
stated in the letter from the City Clerk advising them of the Council's decision
to grant the rehearing. Under City Council Policy No. 105, it would be Mr.
London's attorney's responsibility to present any witnesses they desire and this
was their opportunity to do so within reasonable time limits at the discretion of
the Council.
Mayor Thom felt a reasonable time limitation would be ten minutes per witness.
Mr. Tourtelot then stated he would have to ask for a continuance to prepare for
cross-examination of those witnesses. Mr. Tourtelot added that originally he
had about 80 witnesses but in anticipation of the problem of cumulative evidence,
the list was pared down to 12 and that he had not intended to call anyone who
had spoken at the last hearing against Mr. London. He indicated that he had
presented an abbreviated version of the list of witnesses they intended to call
and would call no further witnesses on behalf of Mr. London at this time.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the City Attorney's Office had no further witnesses and
therefore it would be appropriate for the Mayor to open the hearing for discussion
from the public. He advised that as in the previous hearing, the rules would not
permit cross-examination of those speaking at the public hearing and repeated the
cautionary instruction as given the Council at the September 27th hearing that the
weight given these statements made at public hearings should be based on the demeanor
and type of testimony, for whatever it is worth since it is not subject to cross-
examination.
Mayor Thom called for those who wished to speak in favor of revocation of the Gaming
Premises Permit for Camelot-Anaheim.
Councilman Seymour inquired if it would be appropriate to limit the public hearing
to new and different information to which Mr. Hopkins advised that Council may do
at their discretion if they feel additional statements would be cumulative and
repetitive.
Mr. Seymour Baylos, 5062 La Luna, La Palma, was sworn in and Mr. Tourtelot objected
to anything Mr. Baylos could offer unless it is new evidence.
Mr. Baylos remarked that Mr. Tourtelot had asked each of the witnesses presented
whether or not they had seen or observed any illegal activities and contended that
it would be impossible for patrons at the club to observe or be knowledgable of
these activities since they occurred mostly in the office. He contended that there
were telephone threats to Mr. London, a bookmaking charge and four arrests for con-
spiracy and extortion and misappropriation of funds, all of which events occurred
out of the view of the general public.
Mr. Baylos also contended that since March of 1977, two new individuals, Ann
Humphries and Jim Williams, were introduced into the club and were actively
managing same.
77-1253
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Tourtelot objected to this last statement as being hearsay and was overruled.
Mr. Arthur Gotlieb, 9331 Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, was sworn in by the City
Clerk and stated that Mr. Tourtelot had presented a number of witnesses attesting
to Mr. London's character and to his operation, but the opposition could bring in
twice as many witnesses saying things to the contrary. In his opinion, Mr.
London had committed at least 180 percent of the Camelot-Anaheim business to
various individuals which could be proved and that as the licensee, he used his
position to take money, time and efforts from people and then later told them
they were no longer needed.
Mr. Tourtelot requested permission to cross-examine Mr. Gotlieb and was denied.
Councilman Seymour recalled that Mr. Gotlieb had previously offered some expertise
in the area of card games and gambling and asked him to comment on the Anaheim
Recreation Club as compared to the Camelot operation.
Mr. Gotlieb remarked that the Anaheim Recreation Club is strictly a country card
room, that Mr. Hoskins, the proprietor, deals with strictly local players and
he is lacking in knowledge of how to run a professional operation. He explained
that he did not mean these comments to be derrogatory to Mr. Hoskins or his opera-
tion, which is a local card parlor which caters to the residents of the area in a
manner conducive to benefit the citizens. The Camelot-Anaheim card parlor is
more of a professional operation, since he and Mr. Hagan lent their expertise to
its management.
Councilman Seymour asked Mr. Gotlieb if he felt it would be a fair statement that
the Anaheim Recreation Club is more of a friendly type card game environment, whereas
the Camelot-Anaheim is run more in the fashion of the Gardena clubs with which Mr.
Gotlieb agreed. '
Ms. Stella Novack,32928 Avenue Del Rosal, San Juan Capistrano, was sworn in
by the City Clerk and indicated her opinion that it is not just the club that is
detrimental, but also Mr. London.
Mrs. Ada Phillips, 4415 Larwin Avenue, Cypress, was sworn in by the City Clerk and
testified that she was made aware of the offer made to the Baylos' by Mr. London,
i.e., that for an investment of $100,000 they would receive a 40 percent partner-
ship in the club, as they attempted to borrow some of the initial investment from
her. She stated that she plays cards at the Camelot-Anaheim and enjoys going there,
but if the license is to be revoked on the basis that Mr. London sold interests
in the business, this she feels is true.
Councilman Seymour asked Mrs. Phillips if she had also played at the Anaheim
Recreation Club and if she found the comparison given earlier, that Camelot is
much more for the professional, highly skilled player, and she agreed stating
that she could not get the higher stakes games in which she likes to play at the
Anaheim Recreation Club.
Mrs. Joan Baylos, 5062 La Luna, La Palma, was sworn in by the City Clerk and
denied she had ever made a statement outside of the Council Chamber after the
last hearing in which she sought revenge on Mr. London.
77-1254
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
There were no further persons wishing to speak in favor of revocation and Mayor
Thom called for those opposed to revocation of the permit who wished to speak.
Mrs. Joseph G. London, 8871 Bertran Way, Los Angeles, was sworn in by the City
Clerk and commented that the statements made by the last few people in the public
hearing were entirely wrong and exaggerated; that the club is a family-type opera-
tion which people come from many miles to enjoy.
Sam Breskin, 19130 Sherman Way, Reseda, was sworn in by the City Clerk and stated
that he has been coming to the Camelot-Anaheim for over a year; that he travels
48 miles to attend and has always enjoyed the time spent there; that it is one of
the cleanest and most honest clubs and that he is always treated with respect by
Mr. London.
There were no further persons who wished to speak in opposition to the revocation
of the permit and Mr. Tourtelot was given an opportunity to make his closing state-
ment.
Mr. Tourtelot contended that the witnesses who had appeared this evening in favor
of the club were credible insofar as the question as to whether or not there were
any activities detrimental to the citizens of Anaheim was concerned. He reminded
Council Members that each of the witnesses who spoke against Mr. London has a law
suit against him or were ousted from the club. Some of these individuals were
arrested by Anaheim Police Officers and some were convicted. Mr. Tourtelot felt
Mr. Baylos' earlier statement that his attorney had prepared apromissorynote was
significant in that it gives a picture of the nature of that transaction. In addi-
tion, Mr. Tourtelot called attention to the fact that none of the individuals who
spoke in opposition to the club were Anaheim residents. Mr. Tourtelot stated he
did not personally see anything wrong in a club which is open all night having
armed security guards who can escort patrons to their cars and could not see how
anyone could construe there was more action or something illegal or detrimental
being carried on.
Mr. Tourtelot stated that case law in California when speaking of activities
detrimental to citizens refers to present tense or, what is going on right now.
He recalled that Mr. London went to the Anaheim Police Department voluntarily
and cooperated with the detectives in their investigation to correct the problem.
He concluded that the witnesses' testimony to the fact that no activities were
currently going on which were detrimental to the City was credible and in good
conscience the Council should take this into consideration in making their decision.
MOTION: Mayor Thom moved that the City Council reaffirm its previous action
and previous findings as follows: (1) that Council did grant a permit to Joseph
London for Gaming Premises Permit; (2) that Mr. London operated a gaming premise
pursuant to permit; (3) that one of the conditions of said permit was that the
use of same was not to be transferred to another person; (4) that testimony was
offered this evening that said permit was transferred, sold or conveyed to another
person or persons; (5) that one of the conditions of the permit was that if this
did happen (transfer, sale or conveyance to another person), that the permit be
immediately forfeited together with all rights granted pursuant to it; (6) that
such occurrence, transfer or conveyance required immediate forfeiture of all rights
granted; (7) that the operation of Camelot-Anaheim Card Parlor, under the permitee,
Mr. Joseph London, was in a manner so as to be detrimental to the general welfare of
77-1255
City. Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and (8) that the City Council finds that the
reasonable period of time to be granted to Mr. London to close the Camelot-
Anaheim facility is 30 days from this date. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion. Councilman Roth absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:50 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK