1981/12/1581~1431
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRES ENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
FIRE MARSHAL: Garth Menges
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
CIVIL ENGINEER-DESIGN: Arthur Daw
WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach
PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Rick Gastil, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
148: PRESENTATION - DR. THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER - AIR QUALITY CONTROL: Dr. Thomas F.
Heinsheimer, Chairman of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, made a
presentation relative to Ozone Reduction Strategies for the South Coast Air
Basin, supplemented by ten charts, the last of which listed high priority hydro-
carbon control measures. If all of the controls were implemented, coupled with
serious enforcement, air quality in the South Coast Air Basin would be improved
considerably (see supporting documents - Ozone Stategies for the South Coast Air
Basin, dated December 15, 1981, which documentation was the basis of Dr. Heinsheimer's
presentation).
Councilman Roth, a member of the South Coast Air Quality Management Board,
thanked Dr. Heinsheimer for taking the time to make the presentation before the
Council.
MINUTES: Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held September 1, 1981, with two name spelling corrections as noted by
Councilwoman Kaywood (pages five and fourteen). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINAI{CES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-1432
City Hali~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,902,442.05, in accordance
with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved as
recommended.
a. 161: Receive and file the annual progress report of the Agency as required
by Section 33080 of the California Health and Safety Code.
b. 125: Data Processing Facility Improvements. Account No. 24-932-6325.
Continue the award of contract to December 22, 1981.
c. 123: Authorizing an agreement with VTN Consolidated, Inc., in an amount
not to exceed $12,800 plus $204 sales tax, for aerial photogrammetry to be
used in updating the City's aerial maps.
d. 123/150: Authorizing the first amendment to the agreement with Jones/
Peterson Associates, Inc., to provide professional planning services in
connection with the expansion and redevelopment of Julianna Park, extending
the contract completion date to December 15, 1981.
e. 153: Authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements with certain
organizations for temporary personnel services, commencing on the date of
execution on said agreements and terminating on December 31, 1982.
f. 180: Accepting the offer of Marsh & McLennan, insurance brokers,
dated November 30, 1981, for earthquake insurance for the City's five
major facilities for the period coving January 1, 1982, through December 31,
1982.
g. 153/161: Authorizing the continuance of one Public Works Inspector
position to inspect Redevelopment Agency construction projects through
fiscal year 1981-82.
h. 164: Authorizing Change Order No. 2, in an amount not to exceed $65,000,
to the contract with Poss Constructors, Inc., to the District 17 Storm Drain
Project, to include the reconstruction of a sanitary sewer in Citron Street
between North and Sycamore Streets, and extending the contract completion
date by twenty working days.
i. 128: Receive and file the Annual Financial Report for the year ended
June 30, 1981.
Mayor-Seymour, referring to the Annual Financial Report, dated June 30, 1981,
commented that it was easier to understand, the format was easier to follow,
and he considered it to be the finest quality and best financial statement
published in his tenure on the Council. The bottom line of a financial state-
ment was its effect on bond ratings, thereby saving tax payers money by shaving
a number of base points off the rates the City would pay in bond dealings and
borrowings, culminating in many millions of dollars in savings to the tax payers.
81-1433
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Page one of the report contained a statement from Price-Waterhouse clearly
indicating an unqualified opinion meaning a clean bill of health financially.
He wanted to take this opportunity to express how he felt relative to the
financial statement. It was truly a job well done.
j. 128: Receive and file the Monthly Financial Statement for the four months
ended October 31, 1981.
Councilman Seymour voted "no" on the execution of agreements with certain
organizations for temporary personnel services only. MOTION CARRIED.
150: WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL: Councilman Roth
referred to memorandum dated December 9, 1981, from the Deputy City Manager,
James Ruth, relative to the subject, attached to which was the proposed
Policy and Procedures Manual. He was concerned relative to fire drill and
evacuation procedures especially since senior citizens were at the facility
on a daily basis under the TLC (Transportation, Lunches and Counseling) program.
wanted to be certain that there were periodic fire drills involving the
seniors as well as evacuation procedures to facilitate clearing the area in
case of fire.
Deputy City Manager James Ruth explained that the Fire Department had been
through the facility and it was inspected on a regular basis. He agreed that
fire drills would be appropriate and would follow through and implement the
recommendation.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council approved the Washington Community Center Policy and Procedures
Manual, as submitted. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-571
through 81R-576, 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-571: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STREET STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKING - MAINTENANCE CONTRACT,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 12-796-6325-6010, 01-238-6340-00002,
01-238-6340-00001 AND 01-238-6340-00005. (Award to Sa£ety gtriping gervice, Inc.,
$139,450)
He
81-1434
City Hall~ Anah.e.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15' 1981, 1:30 P.M.
165: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-572: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLAINT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 6 STREET IMPROVEMENT,
AREA BOUNDED BY SANTA ANA RIVER, BALL ROAD, STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND LINCOLN
AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-793-6325-E3540. (Award to
Luz Pina General Engineering, $49,938.14)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 81/t-573: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY
LIGHTING AT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON MAGNOLIA + 190' SOUTH OF GREENLEAF, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-E4200. (Award to Baxter-Griffin
Company, Inc., $17,498)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-574: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LAKEVIEW AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, N/O LA P~ AVENUE,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0340. (Award to Changing
Times Enterprises, Inc., $31,235)
160: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-575: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE
AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-576: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM A~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-500 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COb~EN-
SATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT. (Personnel
Aideand Employment Representative, effective January 1, 1982 through October 7,
1982)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-571 through 81R-576, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
81-1435
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO FILL CERTAIN VACANCIES: Two
vacancies on the Project Area Committee; one vacancy on the Community Services
Board; one vacancy on the Golf Course Advisory Commission; two vacancies on
the Youth Commission (and five terms expiring December 31, 1981) were submitted
for Council consideration and appointment.
Mayor Seymour opened nominations; Councilman Overholt noted that they had
received a recommendation from the Project Area Committee on Sherry Arias
and Myron Reed, as noted by Council Members Roth and Kaywood.
No nominations were offered to fill any of the vacancies.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
consideration of appointments to various boards and commissions was continued
one week. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PETITION BANNING FIREWORKS: Submitted by Dawn Johnson, containing'
approximately 7,000 signatures, requesting the City to ban the sale and use
of all fireworks and fireworks stands, excluding controlled professional
displays (continued from the meeting of December 8, 1981).
Mrs. Dawn JohnsoD, 616 North Olive Street, referred to the petitions previously
submitted to the Council, the signatures for which were gathered over an
approximate six-month period, the purpose being to request the Council to
ban the use and sale of all fireworks and fireworks stands in the City of
Anaheim, excluding controlled professional displays such as at Disneyland,
stadiums, etc., Between June 8, 1981, and July 6, 1981, Anaheim had thirty-
nine fires from safe and sane fireworks and thirty-three illegal fireworks
fires. Relative to those organizations who sold safe and sane fireworks to
raise funds, she felt there were other more valid ways to raise capital.
She maintained that illegal fireworks would not multiply if safe and sane
were banned because authorities would not then have to discriminate and
witnesses could easily point out those in violation, since all fireworks
would be banned. She confirmed for Councilman Roth that her first wish was
to have the Council impose the ban, and second, to place the issue on the
ballot.
Fire Chief Bcb Simpson then submitted a breakdown of Fireworks Incidents for
1980-81, attached to which were statistics for ail of Orange County-1981 (on
file in the City Clerk's office); total incidents 1980: seventy-six, estimated
loss, $425,475, safe-and-sane caused, twenty - ille§al caused, fifty-one.
Total incidents 1981: eighty-nine, estimated loss, $110,050, safe-and-sane
caused, thirty-nine - illegal caused, forty-one. The statistics did not
distinguish in fire loss between safe and sane and illegal.
81-1436
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Seymour asked the Chief to supply him with that
information.
At the conclusion of Council questions posed to Chief Simpson, he stated he
would prefer to have the Council initiate the ban on the sale and use of all
fireworks, excluding controlled and professional displays, but he would not be
opposed to having the issue placed on the ballot under a referendum measure.
As to his opinion with regard to SB999 (Campbell) prohibiting local government
from banning the sale of fireworks through existing zoning laws, (which would
also repeal ordinances in eighty-two cities where sales were currently banned)
he was chairman of the California Fire Chiefs' Legislative Committee. They
were surprised when Senator Campbell agreed to include the issue as a rider
on another bill. They attacked the measure from two standpoints - first,
they were opposed to fireworks, and second, it was a preemption of home rule.
In his opinion, the bill should not be passed.
Councilman Bay stated he had no objections to putting the question on the June
ballot, leaving it up to the people to decide, but taking an action to do so
at this time with SB999 moving through Sacramento might be a waste of time and
effort.
The Deputy City Clerk stated that relative to placing an issue on the June
ballot, they would have at least until February to do so; Councilman Roth
reported he believed it was going to be the first week in January when the
issue of SB999 would be decided.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of the subject request
to January 19, 1982, at which time the outcome of SB999 would be known, and
still leaving sufficient time to place the question on the June ballot if the
Council so desired. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that one
senator was moving to take away the right of local control. She felt that
some very strong action was necessary to inform the legislators they were not
going to sit by and let that happen. Her action would be to direct staff to
prepare an ordinance to ban the sale and use of fireworks other than
controlled displays in the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour did not agree that should be done without a public hearing so
that both sides could be heard, as well am the fact that if they were to take
action today, other than that proposed in the motion, they would be spending
taxpayer funds in placing the issue on the ballot when, in fact, they might
not be able to do so because of preemption by the State Legislature.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no."
MOTION CARRIED.
81-1437
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Becember 15, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood was opposed to continuing the matter to wait and see if
SB999 would pass without doing anything in the meantime to make Council's
position known.
Mayor Seymour felt they had no choice and a letter of opposition had already
been sent. He then explained for Mrs. Johnson that the intent of the motion
was that by January 19, 1982, they would know whether or not the Campbell bill
was successful. She should be at the January 19, 1982, meeting, at which time
she would know when to mobilize her people for a public hearing on the issue.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Bay, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted
by Disneyland Entertainment Division was approved as recommended by the Fire
Marshal to discharge fireworks at Disneyland Park on December 31, 1981, at
midnight, with an exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code restriction. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Overholt,
seconded by Councilman Bay, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit
submitted by Astro Pyrotechnics on behalf of Stadium Motorsports was approved
as recommended by the Fire Marshal to discharge fireworks on January 30, 1982,
intermittently from 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., at Anaheim Stadium, with an
exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code time restriction. MOTION CARRIED.
166: ~NAHEIM BEAUTIFUL: Request by Horst Schor on behalf of Anaheim Beautiful,
for the establishment of a cooperative program for the construction of
identification-entry markers on certain designated arterial highways with-
in the City.
Mr. Horst Schor stated that they had reviewed the staff recommendation in
memorandum dated December 9, 1981, from the Deputy City Manager, James Ruth,
and concurred with the findings, recommendations and conditions, with one
exception, that pertaining to the design of the sign itself. Their initial
impulse was to use the existing monument design On Lincoln Avenue at Knott
Avenue, but a further examination revealed that the cost would be substantially
increased; the sign was very difficult to accommodate relative to the internal
fiber optics illumination; and, it was not quite in keeping with the more modern
image of Anaheim. For those reasons, the Committee felt that a more stream-
lined, less expensive and more modern appearing sign would be more appropriate.
If the Council did not wish to make a decision on the design at this time, Mr. Schor
suggested perhaps members of Anaheim Beautiful and staff.could work together and devise
a mutually acceptable design and present it to the Council at a later time.
Councilman Bay noted that the staff report implied that the only place the
signs were to be installed were in medians, leading to additional expense for
left-turn lanes.
81-1438
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Schor explained this was a preliminary approach and perhaps they could find
some other ways of minimizing the cost and also, looking into parkway locations
as suggested by Councilman Bay.
In concluding, Mr. Schor stated they would like to have the Council's approval
of the concept and to set some funds aside for next year. In the meantime,
they would be working with the Public Works Office and the City Engineer on
the design and location while soliciting contributions from private industry.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the program in concept with those
actions just articulated by Mr. Schor in mind. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour pointed out that Anaheim was one of the
eighteen finalists for the All-American City Award and they would know some
time in the spring whether the City had earned the title. He suggested that
Anaheim Beautiful may want to consider that somewhere in their signing.
Councilman Overholt stated his understanding was that the motion did not involve
a commitment on the part of the Council to any dollar amount; Councilman Bay
stated the intent was not even to imply a commitment to $120,000 on the first
phase, but to the concept only. He wanted to see a great deal more information
from staf~ and assurance that they were not paying for left-turn lanes and
new medians.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 169 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element for alternate proposals of
ultimate land uses including, but not limited to, low density residential,
low medium density residential and medium density residential designations
for an area of approximately 7.4 acres of land located on the west, and portions
of the east side of Citron Street, north of La Verne Street, and the north
and south sides of Northgate Lane.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning
Commission, dated November 2, 1981, relative to the subject property, a City-
initiated General Plan Amendment to consider alternate proposals of ultimate
land uses including, but not limited to, low density residential, low-medium
density residential and medium density residential designations. The Planning
Commission, in their Resolution No. PC81-238, recommended approval of Exhibit "A"
as modified to include an additional 1.8 acres not advertised previously, thus
making it Exhibit "C" low-medium density residential and, further, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to this project. Mr. Tashiro pointed out Item No. 9,
81-1439
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
page 16-d, of the staff report, which listed the results of a resident survey
as well as Item 12a amd b, page 16-e, indicating the need on Citron Street for a
new sanitary sewer ($75,000) and replacement of a water main ($67,000 to $83,000)
to accommodate the density proposed in either alternative, Exhibit "A" (modified
to "C") or "B".
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak on the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Mr. Bill Jolissant, 1001 North Citron, stated he owned three pieces of property
at 1005 and 1009 North Citron. He was satisfied with single-family dwellings
and he had three on his property; however, he supported the seven-unit apartment
project which was approved by the Council at the meeting of September 15, 1981,
(see minutes that date). The one-story apartment project on the corner of
Citron Street and LaVerne looked very nice, and the seven units that were
approved were supposedly to be a comparable one-story project. The single-story
factor was very important to him.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, explained for Councilman
Overholt, that the Planning Commission was also concerned about single-story
development and buffering to the west where single-family residential existed.
The Planning Commission let it be known clearly that when the subsequent re-
classifications of zoning would occur on the property, that was the type of
development they would be looking for.
Mr. Clyde Brown, 937 Citron, (absentee owner) asked for clarification on two
points: (1) He wanted to know how single-story apartments were different
from single-story condominiums and, (2) Relative to the twenty-foot setback
from single-family residential, was that twenty feet from the property line
or the apartment wall.
The Mayor answered that there was no difference relative to his first question.
If the Planning Commission recommendation was accepted as far as density, it
was going to be very close whether apartments or condominiums because of the
one-story limitation. Mr. Tashiro had indicated it would be approximately
fifteen dwelling units per gross acre and the present condominium development
standards (RM-3000) were 14.5 dwelling units per gross acre.
Relative to the setback, the Mayor stated that it was a policy that the side
setback be twenty feet from the property line; Mr. Fick clarified that the
Planning Commission also indicated their intent for the twenty-foot setback
from the rear property line as well.
Mr. Brown then confirmed for the Mayor that he was in support of the Planning
Commission recommendation, Exhibit "C." He, too, preferred single-story as
that would be more acceptable to the area.
81-1440~
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. William Gorrall, 956 North Winter Street, stated he had to agree with
Mr. Jolissant, and based on the thorough discussion at the time of the
Stevenson presentation (see minutes September 15, 1981-Reclassification 80-81-43)
the people abutting the Citron Street property from Winter Street, where his
residence was located, were overwhelmingly in support of the proposal to go to
single-story apartments or condominiums. The primary concern they had at the
time was visual intrusion. The people in the "Four Seasons" tract were mobilized
at the time to support the request and were probably instrumental in influencing
the Council to approve the apartment units. Some of the single-family homes on
Citron Street were shacks and had multiple families living in them. Some of
the houses were forty years old; some houses were very nice, but Citron Street
had to have a face lifting. It would not be expected that single-family
dwellings could be built there and sold at competitive prices. He felt it
had to go apartments. The Four Seasons people recognized that and simply re-
quested that they be decent appearing and decently maintained apartments.
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chamber. (3:57 p.m.)
Mr. Jack Dick, 949 North Citron, stated he was in favor of low density, single-
story units. Subject development would beautify and benefit the neighborhood,
and enable improvements such as curbs, sidewaiks, a better sewer system, drainage,
etc., which were needed. They were concerned over spot changes which would
not benefit the area. If the zoning were changed all at one time, it might
encourage parcelling of properties so that it could be better developed and
traffic circulation would be better. He reiterated he was in support of low-
density, single-story apartments, Exhibit "C" as recommended.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of the Negative Declaration since no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal, and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-577 for adoption, approving General
Plan Amendment No. 169, Exhibit "C" (modified "A"), as recommended by the City
Planning commission, encompassing 7.4 acres of land. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-577: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT
NO. 169, EXHIBIT "C".
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff, with regard to the
existing sanitary sewers and water lines, were they sufficient for the single-
family homes existing in the area at present.
81~1441
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Art Daw, Civil Engineer-Design, answered as far as the sewer was concerned,
at present, it was flowing at capacity. Assuming an increase in the area, the
line between LaVerne and LaPalma would have to be reconstructed. There were
several alternatives for funding: (1) the City could finance it; (2) the City
could prefinance it and establish an acreage fee which the developer would
pay at the time the properties were redeveloped; or (3) (which he would not
particularly recommend),the first developer in to build would pay the front
money and they would have a reimbursement agreement with him to cover his excess
cost. The cost would be approximately $75,000 and considering Exhibit "C" it
would be somewhere around $12,000 an acre additional assessment just for sewers.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, explained that the water mains in
that area were old and were deficient now and had been designated for replace-
ment by the Water Utility, as part of a plan developed for water main replacement
over a twenty-year period. The particular section under discussion would become
a higher priority if redevelopment occurred. They planned to fund such re-
placement out of the current water revenue with the City paying the cost. In
this case, it would be their recommendation, if other projects were built in
the subject area increasing the need for fire flows of a higher magnitude,
that the development would pay the cost of the accelerated schedules in the
$70,000 to $80,000 range, depending upon the actual density involved.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (4:05 p.m.)
Mr. Auerbach continued that they would utilize one of the same methods of fund-
ing as outlined by Mr. Daw. They had not done much in the past other than
requiring the first developer in an area, not necessarily in a redevelop-
ment area, to install the water facilities and have subsequent developers
paid back based on an acreage or front footage basis. That would probably be
their recommendation.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney, assuming the proposed resolution passed,
if it would be appropriate to stipulate within the resolution the alternate the
Council would have ~n mind for the payment of sewer and water lines that would
be required.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that he did not believe it would be appropriate
to do so in the resolution since a General Plan Amendment was involved. They
could express in the minutes that they would support the type of program proposed
and the minutes could be referred to rather than the resolution itself.
Mr. Daw recommended if the Council wished to proceed on a reimbursement acreage
basis, they would go into a more finite study with the necessary hydrology and
provide a more clear-cut estimate. They would submit that to the Council and
request a resolution establishing an acreage fee for that area so that it would
be on record.
81-1442
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor felt that would be more appropriate.
Councilman Bay stated when he listened to almost everyone present in favor of
the General Plan (it was determined by a show of hands that seven people were
present to hear the matter), they all seemed to be concerned with single-story
development and also, the twenty-foot setback. He asked if there were any way,
along with the General Plan Amendment, that the Council could express that
single-story limitation in the Amendment. He believed that the people that
were present expressing support were basing that support on holding development
to single-story.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that a General Plan Amendment was exactly that,
general, and as stated earlier by Mayor Seymour, there could be no guarantee as
to what future Councils might do. It could be put in the minutes that this
was the present Council's wishes, but it could not be added to the General Plan
Amendment itself.
Councilman Bay stated he could support the General Plan Amendment as recommended
by the City Planning Commission, if there were some way to fortify the single-
story in the minutes and that the Council recommended the single-story, not only
to the Planning Commission, but to the developers.
The Mayor stated it was his understanding that position had been set forth by
the Planning Commission. He was in support of the resolution and would be more
than happy to again include, in the minutes, the same recommendation, that
development be limited to single story.
Councilman Overholt further directed that the minutes be explicit on the matter.
A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-577 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that her "no" vote was due to the fact that she
was concerned that there was no guarantee that future development would be
one-story. She maintained it would not be very long, whether the present
Council or another Council, before somebody came in expressing concern over
the little remaining space left in Anaheim, or the great need for housing,
or whatever it might be, in order to justify additional stories. She therefore
voted "no" since this General Plan Amendment would not serve to protect the
people who wished to remain in their homes in this neighborhood.
81-1443
City Hall~ Anaheim~ C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Risk Manager or denied and referred to Bayly, Martin & Fay/San Antonio:
Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Linda Beth Pl-mmmr, for personal property damages purportedly
sustained when the Utility Department. failed to issue a re-connect order, at
1901 East Cortney Way, on or about October 5, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone Company, Case No. H146-0444, for
damages purportedly sustained due to action by City sub-contractor which~damaged
a 12 MTD conduit at Chartres and Citron, on or about August 26, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Ron Cooper for personal property damages purportedly
sustained due to a deep hole in the road on Orangethorpe Avenue at the Kellogg
intersection on or about November 11, 1981.
d. Claim submitted by Betty Burgess for personal injuries purportedly sustained
due to a trip-and-fall accident at the Anaheim Convention Center, on or about
September 25, 1981.
The following claim was denied and referred to Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio:
e. Claim submitted by Timothy Frye for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to unnecessary force used by arresting Police, around 1100 North
Gilbert Street, at or around the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and at
2130 Crescent Avenue, Apartment 1178, on or about September 16, 1981.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 61081, in the
matter of the joint application of Southern California Gas Company and Pacific
Lighting Gas Supply Company for authority to increase rates charged for gas
service based on Test Year 1983; to include an attrition allowance for 1984;
to include in rates a reward for conservation achievements; and to include
in Rate Basm as plant held for future use the expenditures associated with a
major gas supply project.
81-1444
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 61066,
in the matter of the application of Southern California Edison Company for
authority to implement a Residential Conservation Financing Program with Zero
Interest Financing (ZIF) and Cash Incentive Payments (CIP), and to recover
the first year's expenses of the program through its Conservation Loan
Management Adjustment Clause.
c. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 61067,
in the matter of the application of Southern California Edison Company for
authority to increase rates to recover the 1982 incremental expenses of its
Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Program through its Conservation
Load Management Adjustment Clause.
d. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 58739,
Order correcting Decision 93725 in the matter of the Application of Pacifico
Creative Service, Inc., for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
for passenger sightseeing service in Orange County and certain other counties
within the State.
e. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of November 24, 1981.
f. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of November 18, 1981.
g. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for November 1981.
3. 108: APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Police, the following application was approved.
a. Public Dance Permit: Elaine A. Arana, E1 Torito's, Who-Song and Larry's
Cantina, 2020 East Ball Road, for dances to be held December 17, 18, 19 and
31, 1981, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Counci]mmn Roth offered Resolution Nos. 81R-578
through 81R-581, 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. 81R-578: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Robert R.
Voorhees, et ux., William K. Davis, Ahmanson Trust Company)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-579: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (Abandonment No. 81-12A, public hearing to be held
January 12, 2982, at 3:00 p.m.)
81-1445
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-580: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (Abandonment No. 81-13A, public hearing to be held
January 12, 1982, at 3:00 p.m.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-581: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (Abandonment No. 81-14A, public hearing to be held
January 12, 1982, at 3:00 p.m.)
Role Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-578 through 81R-581, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11053: Developer, William Lyon Company; tract is
located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Cerritos Avenue and contains
a five-lot, RM-3000 zoned condominium subdivision,
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the developer was contributing to the drainage
and the problem of the storm drain and lack of facilities in the area.
Mr. Daw answered that fees or charges were not heretofore established for
drainage facilities in the flat lands.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would have to oppose the final map. There was
going to be a tremendous addition to the water flow going into that area and
there were no mitigating measures taken.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, 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. 11053, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated
December 7, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION
CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4292: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4292 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4292: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(94), ML)
81-1446
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4292 duly passed and adopted.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4293 - MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS - STATE COLLEGE~
ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE: Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director,
referred to letter dated December 11, 1981, from Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, whose
input was solicited relative to this subject after the meeting of December 8,
1981 (see minutes that date). They shared much the same concern as the Planning
Staff, with respect to reducing the setback on Orangewood Avenue to ten feet. He
had been trying to contact Mr. Dave Hook from Sunset Construction, as well as
other developers, but had not yet made contact with them.
Based on the information supplied by Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, Councilman Seymour
offered Ordinance No. 4293 for First Reading - that the setback be fifty feet
with ten foot landscaped, or thirty-five feet fully landscaped, on State College
and Anaheim Boulevards and Orangewood Avenue.
ORDINANCE NO. 4293: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS
.015, .016, AND .017 TO SECTION 18.04.045 OF CHAPTER 18.04 AND AMENDING
SECTION 18.41.063 OF CHAPTER 18.41 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING.
142/170: ORDINANCE NO. 4294: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4294 for
First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4294: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.030 OF SECTION 17.08.100, AND SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 17.08.110, OF
CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS.
ORDINANCE NO. 4295: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4295 for
First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4295: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(99), CR)
139: REAFFIRMATION OF SUPPORT THAT BOLSA Lq{ICA BE DEVELOPED AS A PUBLIC
RECREATIONAL BOATING AREA: Councilman Overholt referred to a letter received
from Citizens for Ocean Access & Recreation, indicating they were appearing before
the Orange County Board of Supervisors tomorrow, December 16, 1981, relative
to their plan concerning Bolsa Chica, which had been approved by the Orange
County Planning Commission. The Council took action on the matter previously
(see minutes March 24, 1981) on a split vote, to approve the concept proposed
at the time. Citizens for Ocean Access were asking that they reaffirm their
support.
81~1447
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to send a telegram to the Orange County Board
of Supervisors to arrive for their meeting to be held on December 16, 1981,
confirming that the Council's position relative to the development of Bolsa
Chica as a public recreational boating area had not changed from the support
expressed in Resolution No. 81R-137 of March 24, 1981. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
148/173: SANTIAGO CANYON AIRPORT PROPOSAL: Councilman Roth recalled that several
months back, SCAG planned to come before the Council with a presentation relative
to the subject proposal. Neighbors in the hill and canyon area were starting
to ask the Council's position on the matter and he indicated they were still
waiting for the presentation by SCAG. He recommended that they contact SCAG and
ask them to make that presentation and that subsequently, opposing groups be
allowed to make a presentation. It was time for the Council to be briefed on
the matter and to take a position for or against.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that she had asked that they do that some months ago.
The Mayor stated they wanted a public hearing on the matter with SCAG, not at a
work session, but at a City Council meeting.
City Manager William Talley stated that the Council was going to be given an
in depth presentation at the Executive Management Seminar the next day, to also
include SCAG's timetable.
Mayor Seymour felt that would be a duplication because the Council wanted a
public hearing; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to have the presentation
given as planned.
Planning Director Thompson reported the time frame SCAG was working under would
make the EIR public approximately January 21, 1982; the Mayor surmised then that
the Tuesday following January 21, 1982, a public hearing would be held at the
City Council meeting.
107: HOUSING TASK FORCE UPDATE: Councilman Bay requested a progress report relative
to the Task Force formed to discuss problems in the Robin, Wren, Blue Jay,
Chevy Chase area and when recommendations would be forthcoming to the Council.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:30 p.m.)
AFTER CLOSED SESSION: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:10 p.m.)
81-1448
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 15~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Wednesday, December 16, 1981,
at 9:30 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center, Fullerton Room. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:11 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
BY
DEPUTY CITY CLERK