1977/02/1577-172
_C_ity Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - PLANNING: Phillip Schwartze
PLANNING AIDE: Chris Garlock
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti
MA~NAGL~LENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Amen~
WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Larry M. Sears
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ACTING FINANCE DIRECTOR: Albert Eccles, 3r.
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Thomas F. Liegler
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gordon Sloan of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth !ed the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag. -
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting of January 4, 1977, were approved
with typographical corrections and the following addition to page 8, at the end
of paragraph 3. "Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out the Council memo of September
16, 1976, which listed these future dates." 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
reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $652,682.12, in accordance
with the 197677 BUdget, were approved.
128: PROGRESS REPORT~ ARTHUR YOUNG AND COMPANY: City Manager William Talley
reported on the Financial Management Practices Audit Implementation Review and
the Parks Division Work Measurement Study submitted by Arthur Young and Company
as outlined in his memorandum dated February 8, 1977 (on file in the City Clerk's
Office). Police, Personnel and the Redevelopment Agency were the remaining
assignments still to be completed with the only major area not covered by the
Implementation Report being that of the Utilities Department; however, work on
the main recommendations relative to this area was currently in process.
77-173
.City Hall ~ Anaheim ~ California - COUNCIL, MI.MUTES - February. 15 ~ .1,9777..!: 3.0... p.M.
Mr. Talley explained that all of the recommendations in which there was consider-
able merit had been implemented with the exception of the longer range programs.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved to accept the subject reports and continue imple-
mentation until all recommendations had been complied with. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Councilman Seymour commended staff for the outstanding job they had done relative
to the assistance given Arthur Young & Company in bringing about the recommen-
dations as contained in the Implementation Review. He specifically pointed to
Items 7, 8 and 9, Item III Planning Department, under Item A (page 4 of the
Planning Department, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Course Implementation Review
Study), indicating his opinion that the Planning Department had also done an
outstanding Job in following through with the suggested recommendations resulting
in; (1) Item 7 - a reduction in fiscal year 1975-76 deficit of $206,000.00 to
$36,000.00 in the current fiscal year with the projection that there would be no
deficit but rather a surplus created, thereby bringing about a proper return to
the taxpayers; (2) Item 8 - Achieving monetary success with fewer people, from
49 people in 1975-76, to 46 people in 1976-77; (3) Item 9 - AchievJng a higher
level of service with a lesser number of employees.
Councilman Seymour also commended both the City Manager and Planning Director,
Ron Thompson, for what he considered to be a large step in the right direction
and was pleased with the Planning Department's attitude in working with Arthur
Young to implement the changes.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern, however, that the Department was
under-staffed and overworked and the proposed changes would eventually cause a
ricochet effect resulting in less efficiency. She had received a number of
phone calls indicating it was not possible to get something done quickly because
of other items in process of a deadline nature.
Councilman Seymour suggested that if there were specific cases where it could be
demonstrated that the City was not providing the necessary level of service,
then these should be brought to light instead of mere generalities.
Mr. James Havice, Vice-President of Szabo Foods, expressed his concern relative
to an Anaheim Bulletin article dated February 12, 1977, referring to facts not
current with respect to Szabo'~s present operations at Anaheim Stadium. He ex-
plained that the article related to items within the Arthur Young report, Item
No. II - Findings - in the Stadium and Convention Center Implementation Review,
which report was dated October 27, 1976.
Councilman Roth interjected that he also noted it appeared the newspaper report-
ed on the Arthur Young findings relative to Szabo as though they were current.
Although Arthur Young's cover letter was dated February 4, 1977, their report
relative to the concession at Anaheim Stadium was dated October 27, 1976, as
noted by Szabo.
Mr. Havice reiterated that was the point he wanted to make and asked for the
opportunity to further evaluate and review the matter and present the actual
facts of the oPeration to date through December, 1976.
77-174
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor encouraged Mr. Havice to do so.
After further discussion regarding the actual people involved from Arthur Young
& Company who prepared the subject reports, a vote was taken on the foregoing
motion to accept the-reports and continue implementation until all recommenda-~
tions were in compliance. MOTION CARRIED.
~28: INDE.pENDENT FINANCIAL AUDIT, FISCAL YEAR 1976-77: As outlined in his
mamorandum dated February 8, 1977, the Acting Finance Director recommended the
appointment of an independent certified accountant to conduct the independent
financial audit for the City for fiscal year 1976-77.
Mr. Talley reported that relative to the subject audit, the City's present
auditors, Arthur Young & Company, indicated that they would be prepared to
render their services for the calendar fiscal year under the current fee schedule.
Councilman Roth inquired as to whether or not there were any plans to go out to
bid for such services as he was of the opinion that a new accounting firm would
be a good check and balance for the previous year's audit.
Council discussion followed wherein, as stressed by 'Mayor Thom, it was concluded
that to make a change at this point in time would be unwise. He personally was
in favor of having Arthur Young continue their monitoring and financial effort
for the remainder of the fiscal year and to consider the suggestion of appointing
a new auditing firm for the next fiscal year or the year thereafter.
Councilman Seymour concurred, although he looked forward to the time when another
national auditing firm would be appointed so as to check the previous year's
audit and likewise the year following that, with the objective being to assure
that the City continued to produce and deliver high quality service at theleast
amount of cost.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Arthur Young &
Company was appointed to perform and certify the independent financial audit for
the City for the current fiscal year. To this motion, Councilman Roth voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
Before closing the matter, Mr. Talley referred to a letter dated February 8,
1977, from Mr. Edward Karle of Arthur Young & Company, wherein he recommended
that his company be involved in a consultant and review role relative to the
implementation of the new Fixed Asset Accounting System scheduled for June 30,
1977. If the City was interested in this participation, Arthur Young would be
prepared to provide an estimate of the fee for this special project.
Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that he did not see the need for such a
role by Arthur Young since the goal of the Fixed Asset Accounting System was to
provide a "clean" audit, this requirement should be made a prerequisite by the
firm performing the audit thereby precluding the necessity for consultation
relative to implementation.
77-175
.~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COpNCIL MI~COTES - February 15, 1577, 1:30 P~M.
Mr. Dave Cheleznik of Arthur Young & Company, stated that he would convey-the
request of the Mayor for further elaboration on the matter to Mr. Karle so that
he might develop a formal statement.
160: PURCHASING BID POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: Mr. Talley referred to a Council
request of September-14, 1976, wherein staff was instructed to prepare a repo%t
on the City's purchasing bid policies and procedures, which report was 'subsequently
to be reviewed by Arthur Young & Company for their analysis and comments. A
comprehensive report dated February 9, 1977, with attachments (on file in the
City Clerk's Office) was submitted by the Department of Finan~ce after submittal
of recommendations by Arthur Young in their reply dated February 3, 1977 to the
Finance Director. He pointed out the modifications to the purchasing bid procedure
as recommended by staff also incorporating the comments of Arthur Young relative
to three areas of deficiencies they found in the subject procedure.
Discussion followed wherein several questions were posed by Councilman Kott
relative to Item No. 13, City Manager's Office Review of Purchases, and Item No.
14, Approval of Low Bid, both contained in Exhibit "H", pages 2 and 3.
Mr. Talley confirmed that he did, in fact, review all purchases and conceded
that relative to Item No. 14, it should state "low or best bid" and not just
"low bid". In some instances, the low bid was not the best bid.for the City. He
pointed out that whenever the recommended bid was not the low bid, it was brought
to the Council's attention along with the reason why so that the Council could
then make the final decision.
Mr. Albert Eccles, Acting Finance Director, spoke to the matter of whether
dollars only should be the criteria for accepting a bid. He read from a manual,
that in the final analysis, price was only one factor to be considered in the
total evaluation relative to the purchase of equipment. Speaking~from experience,
he voiced his opinion that the Purchasing Department could, therefore, be considerably
hampered if price were the only determination.
Regarding specifications, he stated that it should be made clear when advertising
for a bid or seeking to purchase, that specifications could be written in a
fashion so narrow the response could be limited to one particular item.
Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, pointed to the example of
the "Big A" scoreboard where the City did not choose the lowest price scoreboard.
Councilman Roth stressed that even though the Council sets policies, they were
dependent upon department heads and the City Manager to advise and recommend and
that was where the responsibility should lie.
Councilman Kott stated if the item desired was already known, bids should not
contain brands not wanted. If quality was desired, then anything else in the
bid process outside of quality should not be part of the bid and subsequently,
three bids should be acquired with that quality.
77-176
City Hal.l.m A~ahe%m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~- February 1.5_, ~977,. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. W.Q Talley confirmed that as of the week prior, there was a direct administratiw
policy that three bids with prices would always be submitted to the Council or a
reason given as to why three were not obtained.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed to the fact that formal bidding required one third,
more time which caused such a process to be significantlY more expensive, a
factor to.be considered in the quest to cut costs.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom,.the City's
purchasing bid policies and procedures as outlined in report dated February 9,
1977, with attachments, from the Department of Finance were approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
128: QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT, PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1976: On motion
by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City's Quarterly Financial
Report for the period ending December 31, 1976, as s'ubmitted in report dated
February 8, 1977, from the Department of Finance was received and filed. MOTION
CARRIED.
174: EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE PROGRAMS:
Mr. Talley referred to report dated February 8, 1977, from HarOld A. Bastrup,
Chief of Police, wherein he recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed
resolution authorizing himself and the City Manager to. execute documents in
connection with Federal Civil Defense Programs.
Councilman Kott stated that as an elected official, it was his opinion that any
expenditures incurred by the City should be approved by the City Council and not
by appointed personnel; therefore, he would vote "No" on the proposed resolution.
Mr. Talley explained that the only expenditures involved were ones that the Council
previously approved. Otherwise, he would not approve such expenditures unless
directed to do so by the Council. He explained that in order to be eligible for
financial assistance under the previously approved program, it was necessary to
file statements for such reimbursement which amounted to 50% of the costs expended.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-85 for adoption. Refer to.Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL
CIVIL DEFENSE PROGRAMS.
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-85 duly passed and adopted.
77-177
_City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Febru.ary 15~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
150: REMOVAL OF 30~000 C.Y. OF SOIL FROM HILLS PARK SITE NO. 1: (located east
of Imperial Highway, north of Nohl Ranch Road - request by Anaheim Hills, Inc.)
In joint report dated February 8, 1977, City Engineer Maddox and the Director
of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department Ruth, recommended approval of the
subject request as outlined in letter dated February 2, 1977, from Anaheim Hills,
Inc. ,
Mr. Philip Bettencourt, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, on behalf of Anaheim Hills, re-
quested that the matter be continued for one week when the EIR on the adjacent '
grading project would be presented for certification along with an accompanying
unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission including additional issues
relative to the subject matter requiring Council attention. Anaheim Hills wanted
the opportunity to demonstrate more specifically that such a request was reasonable,
as well as the fact that Council was first entitled to view the entire matter.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration
of removal of 30,000 C.Y. of soil from Hills Park Site No. 1 by Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
169: FOUR CORNERS PIPE LINE COMPANY~LETTER AGREEMENT: Councilman Thom offered
Resolution No. 77R-86:for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 9,
1977, from the City Enginaer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A LETTER AGREEb~NT WITH FOUR CORNERS PIPE LINE COMPANY, AND' AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL P[EMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-86 duly passed and adopted.
178: CALIFORNIA WATER DROUGHT~ CONSERVATION MEASURES: Mr. Darrell Ament, Utilities
Department, P~nagement Services Manager, briefed the Council on memorandum dated
February 9, 1977, from the Utilities Director wherein the need for adopting the
proposed resolution as recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their
February 3, 1977, meeting was advised because of the seriousness of the California
water drought. Mr. Ament explained that his Department was in close contact with
their principal wholesale supplier, the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, who recently called upon all water agencies they supply to
adopt a voluntary program of conservation although no specific percentage was set.
The Utilities Department was also asking each City Department and Division Head to
eliminate unnecessary uses of water.
Mr. Ament further explained that the amount of water normally taken from Northern
California and supplied to the south was going to be reduced, but that difference
would be compensated by bringing Colorado River water into Southern California;
the reservoirs along the Colorado River being full thereby precluding the same
77-178
City Hall.~ Anahe, i.m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February. !5~ 1977.~ ..1: 30 P~M~
problem as that of Northern California. Mr. Ament reiterated the need for
effective voluntary conservation so that mandatory controls would not be imposed
by the Governor. He pointed out, however, that a reduction in the amount of
water being sold to consumers would.not decrease the Utilities Department's need
for cash flow. If the reduction was substantial, there was a possibility that
the Department would have to bring back a recommendation for a rate increase.
Councilwoman Kaywood stressed the importance of curtailing the waste of water,
especially considering the fact that Southern California is a semi-arrid area
and if another dry year should occur, the area would be in a Serious position.
Although the Mayor was in favor of the resolution, he was concerned over its
vagueness and preferred instead a more formidable document in order to give a
high degree of recognition to the need for not wasting water.
Mr. Ken Keesee, Chairman of the Public Utilities Board, explained that the
Metropolitan Water District recommended a certain conservation percentage to
their customers and that the Board anticipated the possibility of so doing. The
first goal was to instill the idea that the drought was also a threat to the
Southern California community thereby bringing about a voluntary program so as
to eliminate the need for a mandatory one in the future, a matter which would be
discussed at the Board's February 17, 1977, meeting. He emphasized that the
situation was much more serious than people realized and that preventive measures
should be taken at this time to preclude the future impact of a water shortage.
The Mayor suggested the possibility of monitoring water usage and attaching
penalties to over uses. At this time he would vote for the resolution, but with
the assurance that the Public Utilities Board would come back with recommendations
for strengthening it.
Both Councilman Roth and Mayor Thom suggested that notices be included with
utility bills outlining effective measures for conserving water with perhaps a
synopsis of the proposed resolution.
Councilman Kott stated that the matter of conservation should be left up to the
people and he was not in favor of penalties, rate increases or the like. He
further stated that Southern California was blessed with more water because it
had the foresight to provide for the' present circumstances, whereas Northern
California did not do so. He was opposed to being penalized because others had
not been responsible. Furthermore, if less water was used, there would be less
work and perhaps bring about the necessity for fewer employees.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-87 for adoption. Refer to Res-
olution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ON CALIFORNIA WATER DROUGHT.
77-179
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February .15~ 19.77~ 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-87 duly passed and adopted.
178: FEASIBILITIES STUDY, ~ATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE IN SANTA ANA CANYON: Mr.
Ament stated that the water transmission pipeline as outlined'in memorandum
dated February 9, 1977, from the Utilities Director, with attachments, (on file
in the City Clerk's Office) would cost approximately two and one half million
dollars if constructed by Anaheim alone. The proposed feasibility study, as
recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their meeting of February 3, 1977,
also recommended that the Utilities Department be authorized to request the
Water District of Orange County to undertake this study to determine
the need for regional or joint ownership of the transmission main.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Ament stated that there would be no cost to
the City for the study except in necessary staff time.
Councilman Seymour questioned if other alternatives were explored over and above
the two outlined in the Utilities Department's memorandum.
Mr. Larry Sears, Water Superintendent, briefed the Council on two other alterna-
tives that had also been explored. He assured Councilman Seymour that at the
time the proposed feasibility study was completed, sufficient data could be pro-
vided relative to other alternatives for comparison purposes, which alternatives
could even be more advantageous than those proposed.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Utilities
Director was authorized to request the Municipal Water District of Orange County
(MWDOC) to undertake a study to determine the feasibility and need for regional
or joint ownership of a water transmission pipeline in Santa Ana Canyon. To this
motion, Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
107: ORDINANCE NOS. 3654 THROUGH 3656: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos.
3654 through 3656, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3654: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 15,
CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1976 EDITION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, VOLUME I,
WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 15, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER
15.04.
ORDINANCE NO. 3655: AN ORIDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 15,
CHAPTER 15.20 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTING .THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS UNIFORM PLIIb~ING CODE, 1976
EDITION, APPENDICES A, B, C, D, E, F AND G, INCLUDED, WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO:
AND iMENDING TITLE 15, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER 15.20.
77-180
C_ity Hall, A.naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15.~ !977~ i!30,.P~M~.
ORDINANCE NO. 3656: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIIY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 15,
CH-~PTER 15.50 OF %~{E ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1976 EDITION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, UNIFORM MECHA~NICAL CODE, WITH
AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER
15.50. '
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, public hearing on the
Uniform Building, Plumbing, Mechanical Codes, 1976 Editions, were set for public
hearing, March 1, 1977, 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
167: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 795-A~ TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALT.ATiON:~ (Cerritos
Avenue and Gilbert Street) COuncilman Seymour offered Resolu'tion No. 77R-88 for
adoption, awarding a contract in accordance with the recommendations of the City
Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-88: 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 A~' EQUIPMENT
AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT: CERRITOS AVENUE AND GILBERT STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, IN THE
CITY'OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 795-A. (Signalite, $30,885.00)
Roll Call Vote: ~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MF~MBERS:
COUNCIL M~M~ERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-88 duly passed and adopted.
167: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 800-A, TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION: (Euclid
Street and Palais Road) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution~o. 77R-89
for adoption, awarding a contract in accordance with the recommendations of the
City Engineer. Refer' t~ Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-89: 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, PL~TERIALS 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: EUCLID STREET AND PALAIS ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 800-A (Signalite, $30,780.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mmyor declared Resolution No. 77R-89 duly passed and adopted.
77-181
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL M~NUTES - February ~5, I977~ 1:30 P.M.
150: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 8452 SCHWEITZER PARK PROPERTY LINE WALL IM]PROVEMENT:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-90 for adoption, awarding a con-
tract in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-90: 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
IMPROV~tENT: SCHWEITZER PARK PROPERTY LINE WALL IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 845. (Granstrom Fence Construction, Alternate I, $14,046.20)
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-90 duly passed and adopted.
140: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 1Q53, REROOFING OF HASKETT BRANCH LIBRARY:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-91 for adoption,~awarding a
contract in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-91: 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, A_ND PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IM-
PROVEMENT: HASKETT BRANCH LIBRARY REROOFING, 2650 WEST BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1053. (Polycap of California, $9,450.00)
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-91 duly passed and adopted.
156: AWAP~ OF WORK ORDER NO. 9104.~ JAIL DETOXIFICATION AND SAFETY CELLS:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-92 for adoption, awarding a
contract in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
77-182
City Hall~ Anaheim, .,Ca. lifornia- .COUN~CIL ~I!Nq3TES - February 15, 197~.~ I!30?P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-92: 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
A~ND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFOP~MING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
Ib~PROV~MENT: POLICE FACILITIES REMODELING OF JAIL DETOXIFICATION AND SAFE%Y
CELLS, 425 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 9104.
(Pace-RosJ Company, $11,874.00)
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-92 duly passed and adopted.
140: LIBRARY .POLICY CHANGES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
woman Ka)~ood, recommendations outlined in a letter dated February 7, 1977, from
Elizabeth Schultz, Chairman of the Library Board, relative to fees for microfilm
hard copies and a revised policy for circulation of motion picture films was
approved. MOTION CARRIED.
140: USE OF UNEXPENDED FUNDS FOR OUT-REACH PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, recommendations are to be solicited from
the Community Services Board and brought back to the Council relative to a sug-
gested out-reach program for the minority community for utilization of unexpended
funds as a result of curtailment of activities at the George Washington Community
Center Library, MOTION CARRIED.
106: REPRESENTATION OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AT ALL BUDGET MEETINGS: Relative
to upeoming budget meetings between administrative staff and various departments,
the Mayor was of the opinion that all departments having a board or commission
should have a representative of that board or commission at its budget meetings.
Since these appointed bodies make recommendations to the Council, it was important
that they fully understood the budget procedure with all its implications and
ramifications, as well as take part in formulating or becoming intimately aware
of how a department's budget was implemented.
MOTION: Councilman Thom moved that all departments having a 'board or commission,
that that board or commission be represented at all budget meetings. Councilman
Kott seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
City Manager Talley indicated that he considered advisory boards to be strictly
as the Charter described them, advisory to the Council. He considered the
Mayor's proposed recommendation an interference with the administrative process
since it would prevent the CitY Manager and the department head from having a
candid talk on the particular department budget without opening it up to a
public hearing. He contended that any time a third ~arty, not a subordinate of
the City Manager, entered into the budget review, it was not possible to have a
true City Manager's budget review.
77-183
.City H~il~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15, 1977~.1:30.~.M~
The Mayor disagreed with Mr. Talley's assessment of the proposal.
Councilman Kott stated that since boards and commissions did set policy and made
recommendations to the departments and the Council, in order for them to be most
effective, they should participate in budget hearings. In this way, they could
offer some input as well as better understand the financial situation of a ~
department with the result that they (boards and commissions) may change their
recommendations from time to time. He saw nothing wrong with the proposal.
Mr. Talley indicated his understanding was that department heads who had various
boards and commissions reporting to them did take into consideration what they
wished to express. Thereafter, the department submitted their budget to the
City Manager for review which budget was, in fact,~ the City Manager's Budget.
However, at the time the budget was presented to the City Council, then the
board or commfssion would again have the opportunity to present their views if
they so desired. It was his opinion that, in reality, it was possible that the
City Manager would ba required to defend his budget hearing while it was being
conducted. He explained that frequently discussions with department heads
revolved around the performance of the department, subordinates, the Manager's
perception of the adequateness of his program and the department's ability or
inability to perform the tasks for which it was established. He emphasized that
frank discussions of that nature would be inhibited by'having an advisory committee
or anyone else other than the Manager's staff and department staff at those
meetings and would be a restraining factor. He added that for one reason or
another, representatives from those boards or commissions could make the discussion
public.
Councilman Seymour inquired of Mr. Talley whether or not the same type of potential
conflict would occur if, after the City Manager's Budget was put together directly
with the department head and prior to the budget baing submitted to the Council,
it was referred to the appropriate board or commission for perusal and Comment
and subsequently submitted to the Council.
Mr. Talley indicated there would be no problem with the process as articulated
by Councilman Seymour. His concern was relative to the politicizing of the
administrative process before the matter came before the City Council~
Further discussion followed between Council and staff revolving around the
efficacy of the proposal, as well as the restraints it would introduce into the
current budget process. Councilman Seymour concluded that the proposed action
would lead to a negative environment.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. The motion failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
77-184
City Hall.~ An~he.im~ California ,. COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15,. 1977, i:30....P..M.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:05
P.~. )
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:15 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 2881: 'Application
by Joseph P. and Gladys E. Gleason, for a change in zone from CL to RM-1200 to
construct a 60-unit apartment complex on property located at 3400 West Ball Road'
with code waivers of:
a) minimum building site ~dth
b) minimum sideyard setback (deleted)
c) required enclosure of carports (deleted)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-10, 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, recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-27
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the o~er(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of two dollars ($2.00) per front foot along Ball Road for street' lighting
purposes.
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 Ball Roar 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 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.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner 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. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
77-185
City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 197~~ 1:30 P.M.
10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Con-
dition Nos. 1, 2, and 9, 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.
11o That Condition Nos. 3, 5, and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to ~inal building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77Lll granted Variance
No. 2881, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. Tnat this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 76-77-27, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
(Revision No. 1), 2 and 3.
3. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from
date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission and/or City Council may grant.
4. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and satisfied
with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. John Waters, Agent for the Applicant, 747 West Katella, Orange, stated that
he was satisfied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Ine Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Edwin Reinhardt, 1313 South Oakhaven Drive, stated that he lived right in
back of the hospital where the proposed project was to be located. He explained
that originally when the land changed to the designation it now had (CL), the
community petitioned against the change but it was subsequently granted.
Mr. Reinhardt then presented a petition with over 100 signatures opposing the
requested reclassification and gave the following reasons for opposition as well
as comments:
1. Traffic generated by the project would be undesirable for the elderly people
with medical Problems in the area; there was no need to build the apartment
complex near a hospital, convalescent home and retirement home (Eden Roc).
77-186
City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1.5, 1.~77.~ !:30....P.M~
2. Because the type of project proposed attracted transient residents, due to
the small square footage proposed, resultant problems such as thievery would
occur; other such apartments in the immediate vicinity were police problems and
additional taxes would be necessary to support needed City services.
3. A nuisance and slu~ area would be created solely for the gain of the owner.'
4. Several crimes had occurred in the apartment complex across the street.
5. City management should seriously consider the taxpayer, present residents of
the community who lived in the area for many years, and the hospital, all of
whom were 100% against the proposed project.
6. Once the units are built, the City could do nothing about resultant problems.
Mr. Reinhardt elaborated on additional problems which had occurred relative to
the other apartment houses in the vicinity. Even though the Planning Commission
expressed that lowcost housing had to be provided for young people, he, as well
as those he represented, expressed the opinion that such housing was inappropriate
for tile particular area. He stressed the need for consideration of the residents
and taxpayers of the area who wanted the land used for its intended purpose or
some other suitable usage which would not cause dissension with those who had
lived in the neighborhood for many years.
Mr. Leon Pettijohn, Administrator of Anaheim General Hospital, expressed his~
concern over the proposed project relative to traffic problems, noise problems
and the safety and security of their personnel and property. Many 'of their
female employees worked late hours. He explained that there were security
problems around hospitals and it was difficult to maintain surveillance. He was
also concerned about the overall effect the proposed development would have on
the hospital and preferred instead to see the property used in a limited commercial
manner where there would be no activity at night. Anything that would increase
the number of people in the area would affect the hospital adversely. He also
viewed the proposed entrance to the project as a potential hazard since it was
located adjacent to the medical office building.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Pettijohn did not foresee the hospital
having any use for the property at the present time.
Mr. Nick Williams, 3245 West Ravenswoo~, expressed his opposition to the proposed
project as well as the variances generally. He was concerned over the recommendations
made by the Planning Commission granting variances thereby, lessening the security
that such projects would not become a reality. He spoke in relation to the open
field behind his home and his concern that some day apartments might also be
built there even though he had been assured that this would not occur.
Mayor Thom interjected that the issue seemed to be the reclassification request
from commercial to residential since the two variances requested were deleted,
thereby, not causing an impact to the area such as a change of zone would do.
77-187
City Hall~ .Anabeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15,.!~77, 1,,:30P~M.i
Mr. Gilbert De Baun, 1327 South Oakhaven Drive, explained that he had lived in
the area for 20 years and briefed the Council on the history of the property
which was originally zoned RA and owned by three or four people. Subsequently
it w.as purchased by one person who applied for rezoning to build apartments,
which request was turned down due to the opposition of the residents in the ,
area. The owner then requested a change in zone to CL and everyone in the
neighborhood agreed that this designation was a better alternative in order to
preclude apartments from being built on the property. The proposal was now
reverting back to the original request, and Mr. De Baun was adamant that the
people of the community should have a say in the matter since they were the ones
who lived in the community on a daily basis, whereas the owner had no commitment
to the neighborhood after the property was sold.
In summation, Mr. Waters indicated that many of the points expressed had been
discussed at the first hearing and commented on them as follows: (1) Relative
to traffic, he contended that any development would generate traffic and uses
other than residential might even produce a higher volume; (2) The hospital's
service entrance was not a public entrance and emergency vehicles entered on the
east side of the hospital; (3) Hospital Personnel were now walking out into a
parking lot immediately adjacent to a vacant piece of property and he personally
considered it preferable to have a wall and people living back in that area; (4)
It could not be assumed that the apartments would become automatic slums as the
potential buyer had built several apartment projects in the County and had an
attitude towards his product of building the best he could; (5) They had worked
with the requests of the Planning Commission and complied with their wishes as
far as an overall scheme; (6) The proposed development may be more deisrable
than a commercial development relative to the elderly population; and (7) Adequate
onsite parking would be provided.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Miss Santalahti indicated that both parcels on
either side of the proposed complex had been zoned prior to the commercial
zoning of the subject site. Councilman Seymour stated he was trying to ascertain
whether or not the owner, Dr. Gleason, had created what he (Seymour) considered
to be a hardship parcel.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour, although sympathetic with the Planning Commission's contention
that the owner should have the right to develop his property, did not consider
the proposed development to be a good one for the neighborhood and the citizens'
living there had a rightful concern. He, too, acknowledged that the property
owner had the right to develop his property, but under the existing CL zoning.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project
will have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt
from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Rothoffered Resolution No. 77R-93 for adoption, denying Reclassifi-
cation No. 76-77-27, and Resolution No. 77R-94 for adoption, denying Variance
No. 2881. Refer to Resolution Book.
77-188
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-93: 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. (Reclassification No. 76-77-27)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COb~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2881, ,
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-93 and 77R-94 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-35 AND VARIANCE NO. 2887: Application
by August R. and Addeene K. Zutter, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-
1200 to construct a 21-unit apartment complex with a code waiver of maximum
building height on property located at 3160 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-18, recommended
that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and, further, recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-35 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along' Ball Road
for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Ball'Road
including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements
such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities
or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office
of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Ball Road 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; 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 Ball Road 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.
77-189
~ity Hall..~.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ !977~ I{~O..P.~M.
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
appropria%e 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 issue
9. That a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the west property
line.
10. That in accordance with the specifications of Council Policy No. 542 (Sound
Attenuation in Residential Projects), sound-attenuation measures adjacent to
Ball Road shall be provided unless otherwise waived by the City Council.
11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2, and 3, 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 (1) year from the
date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-19, granted Variance
No. 2887, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 76-77-35, now Pending.
2. That sound attenuation measures shall be provided adjacent to Ball Road, in
accordance with City Council Policy No. 542, as stipulated to by the petitioner,
unless waived by City Council.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 4; provided, however, that all carports shall be enclosed on three (3)
sides and otherwise constructed in compliance with Code standards, as stipulated
to by the petitioner.
4. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from the
date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission
and/or City Council may grant.
5. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
77-190
~.ity Hall~.~a~e~m~ Cali..fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surroundingland uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Ali Labib, 16068 Mount Laster Court, Fountain Valley, Agent and owner, in-
dicated he was satisfied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard whether in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff what the allowable denaity would be if the
requested waiver were not permitted, assUming the property on the east would be
zoned for apartments.
Miss Santalahti explained it would lower the entire site to a one-story building,
thereby, cutting the density in half to 10 to 15 units instead of 21.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that, in effect, the adjoining property
was being prezoned when no one asked for a reclassification. She was very much
opposed to prezoning. In this case, the property was presently zoned agricultural
and she objected to assuming it would become apartments. She further commented the
area was now very highly overbuilt with apartments.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will
have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-95 for adoption, authorizing the
preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested subject to
the conditions recommended by the City Planning Cor~nission and Resolution No.
77R-96 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2887, subject to City Planning Commission
recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY oF~ANAHEIM
FINDING'ANDDETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
C~NGED. (Reclassification No. 76-77-35)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2887.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
77-191
City Hal!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MIbVdTES - Febru. ary 15, 19~7~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-95 and 77R-96 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1636 -'REHEARING: Application by
William P. and Emma S. Bregder, to permit an 80-unit motel on property located
at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Easy Way.
On September 14, 1976, the City Council granted a negative declaration Status on
the subject project pursuant to City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76139.
and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1636 (76R-556) subject, to the City Planning
Commission conditions and the added condition that only 25% of the motel units
be dedicated as kitchen units.
A request for rehearing filed by Harry Knisely, Attorney for the petitioner, was
granted on January 18, 1977, relative to the elimination of the 25% stipulation
for kitchenette units and public hearing set for this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Harry Knisely, 1741 South Euclid Street, first reiterated the good track
record of the petitioner as a motel owner and operator of long standing as ex-
plained in the previous public hearing (see minutes of September 14, 1976). At
that time, the matter of credibility was a concern relative to kitchenette
units, the question of 2-burner or 4-burner units, and the possibility that the
motel units would become substandard apartments.
So as to allay the concerns expressed, Mr. Knisely stated that he had prepared
an agreement stipulation providing for forfeiture of the Conditional Use Permit
in the event the agreement was violated regarding the maximum length of tenancy
which was 30 days. He had discussed the agreement with the City Attorney and it
was on file with the City Clerk.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Knisely indicated he would prefer to have the
entire second half of Condition No. 7 in PC76-139 deleted, which condition
stipulated spe6ific kitchenette equipment including 2-burner drop-in'type stoves.
Discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood and Mayor Thom expressed their
concerns relative to opening up the proposed motel to 100% kitchenette units in-
stead of the standard 25% maximum, considering several experiences in the past
where such units did become substandard apartments.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Knisely agreed that the City would have
the right to rip out 75% of the kitchenette units if tenants were allowed to
stay over 30 days under the proposed agreement, stipulating forfeiture of the
conditional use permit.
77-192
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL .MINUTES - February 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor, however, voiced the opinion that such action would be very difficult
to impose or enforce.
Mr. Knisely contended that there was a significant difference between a written
stipulation prepared by the petitioner, than one imposed upon the petitioner.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated he had reviewed the matter with Mr. Knisely and
it was his opinion that the agreement would be enforceable although it would
take some court action to bring about the enforcement.
Councilman Roth stated that he saw a need for the type of project proposed with
kitchenette facilities to accommodate the many families who visited Disneyland.
He also did not consider it reasonable that someone would live in the units at a
cost of $500 to $600 a month and would favor the' proposal with the aforementioned
stipulation by the petitioner provided the City Attorney agreed that such a
stipulation was a formidable one.
Mr. Knisely confirmed for Councilman Kott that the matter of 2 burners or 4
burners was mentioned only because it had been a problem in the past and that
plans and specifications would only allow limited equipment to be installed.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the development proposal, noting the larger
units included many features not ordinarily incorporated in a motel room, and
also noted in the Planning Commission minutes of August 4, 1976~ that Commissioner
Farano recommended if Conditional Use Permit No. 1636 was considered at the City
Council level, attention should be drawn to the proposed plans.
RESOLUTION: Thereupon Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional'
Use Permit No. 1636 for more than the allowable 25% of the total units for
kitchenette units.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour discussed with City Attorney Hopkins
the enforcement aspect of the petitioner's agreement relative to the present
purchaser and any future purchasers of the motel. He suggested that over and
above the additional stipulations, in the event litigation was necessary, the
petitioner be held responsible to reimburse the City for any'legal expenses
caused by such litigation.
Mr. Hopkins stated that such a clause could be added if the applicant were in
agreement.
Mr. Knisely stipulated that he would be amenable to amending the agreement
stipulation to include reimbursement to the City for attorney's fees as a
result of any litigation that may occur.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed for Councilman Seymour that any future property owner
would be put on notice relative to this stipulation as well.
77-193
City_.Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15, 1977, 1.:~0 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern over the granting of the CUP even
with the noted stipulations.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No.
1636 for more than 25% kitchenette units. The resolution failed to carry by the
following vote: ~
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott and Roth
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-97 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1636 for 100% kitchenette units subject to City Planning Commission
conditions, agreement stipulation of the applicant relative to forfeiture of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1636 and the additional stipulation by the applicant
concerning payment of litigation costs should such litigation be necessary to
enforce the agreement, and eliminating reference only to the 2-burner stove in
Condition No. 7 of PC76-139, all other items in that condition to remain as
stipulated to. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANtiNG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1636.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
C0b~CIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour, Kott and Roth
Kaywood and Thom
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-97 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 117~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 119:
To consider circulation and access for an approximate 140-acre area generally
bounded on the northwest by Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, on
the east by proposed Monte Vista Road and on the southwest by Mohler Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-21 reported that
draft EIR No. 191 does conform to the City and State Guidelines and the State of
California Environmental Quality Act and, based on such information, does hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that they certify said EiR
No. 191 as being in compliance with said Environmental Quality Act with modifica-
tion to reflect street lighting requirements to be in accordance with CounCil
Policy No. 207-A; and further recommended adoption of Exhibit "B" for Area
Development Plan No. 117.
Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Planning Director-Planning, explained that Area
Development Plan 117 (ADP 117) considered access and speculation in the subject
140-acre area, approximately one-half of the 140 acres involved being in unincor-
porated Orange County area and the remaining one-half in the City of Anaheim.
He further explained the changing land use in process in the area involving the
development of one-half acre residential estates, such development requiring
access and circulation guidelines in order to coordinate the proper development,
as well as improve travel and safety. He also stated that both the City and the
77-194
City Hall~ Anahei~m~ California -COUNCIL MINUTES - February 157 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
County were independently processing parcel maps as developers came into the
area. However, there were no specific area plans to go by for reference purposes.
Mr. Schwartze expressed the concern that since the area was in the Scenic Corridor,
haphazard development could result especially with regard to tree removal and
also relayed the concern of the Fire Department relative to acess to getting ~
their vehicles into the area since most of the streets were private narrow dirt
roads.
Mr. Schwartze then briefed the Council on all previous meetin'gs held relative to
the proposed ADP 117 including the emphasis that was placed on the access points
involved in the study.
Chris Garlock, Planning Aide, then narrated a slide presentation .which gave an
overview of the subjent area and subsequently pointed to specific areas where
changes would take place should the recommendations be adopted either under
Exhibit "B" or Exhibit "C".
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard-either in favor or in opposition to
ADP-117.
b~. Larry Williams, 2123 East Ball Road, Coastal Developers, owner of properties
in the area, indicated that his main concern was that the Martin Road access to
Santa Ana Canyon Road be left open since it had been used as an access point for
approximately 45 years. He stated that Coastal Developers supported Exhibit
Mr. Ted Pfeifer and Mr. Paul Mc Connell, no addresses given, both emphasized
that no matter which plan was adopted, they wanted the assurance that the pilot
roadway extension from Via Copala to Santa Ana Canyon Road (opposite Eucalyptus
Drive) was going to be constructed.
As noted in the staff report, the Via Copala pilot road extension was approved
by the City Council on November 9, 1976.
Mrs. Mitzi Ozaki, 340 Timken Road, Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners' Association,
first commented on a statement made in the staff report indicating that the
subject area was the greatest potential, fire hazard in the City. She indicated,
however, that a random sample of calls from different fire s~ations throughout
the City requested of Chief Riley refuted the statement since the count in the
Santa Aha Canyon area was very low. She also pointed to the fact that there
were only three fire disasters in the area spread over many years and as development
continued, more brush would be cleared thereby diminishing that type of potential
fire hazard.
Mrs. Ozaki then expressed her opposition to the proposed plan for the following
reasons including supporting comments: (1) Although the main concern was to
provide greater circulation, one of the reasons and a chief goal for the entire
study was closure of access points thereby, making the study a contradictory
one. (2) Present access intervals in the Canyon area were two-tenths and three-
tenths of a mile; residents did not want closer intervals of access. (3) Uphold
Council Policy No. 207-A am recommended by the Planning Commission thereby not
requiring the Mohler Drive area to be lit up. (4) Maintain the integrity of
private roads; Exhibit "B" only increases the amount of traffic to private
77--195
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15, 1977.~ 1:30 P.M.
roads. (5) Private roadways are the backbone of Mohler Drive and are maintained
by the residents with proper insurance coverage; institution of the proposed
plan would be costly to the City. (6) Through streets would further encourage
children being brought to the area for skateboarding and also increase motorcycle
traffic. (7) The area was now relatively protected from thefts; the inhibiting
factor believed to be dead-end streets since there would be no fast way out.'
(8) Private streets provided the privacy that residents hoped to have by moving
into the subject area.
Mrs. Ozaki thereupon urged denial of any changes in the area as proposed in Ex-
hibit "B".
The following people spoke in opposition to any change in the subject area for
the below listed reasons and supporting comments: Muriel Reed, 6721 Eucalyptus
Drive; Walt Wise, 461 South Nohl Ranch Road; Larry and Karen Voyer, 6882 Eucalyptus
Drive; Milton Owens, 543 North Handy, Orange; Tom Owens, 3419 Timber View,
Dallas, Texas; Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place; Hank Rivera, 451 Country
Hill Road (President of SACPOA).
1. After going through a series of Task Force meetings and signing of petitions,
almost 100% of the residents in the area expressed their desire for the.roads to
remain as they were at present and not provide a continuous circulating pattern
because of the life style they made by choice; the voice of the people should be
considered in the final decision.
2. The area is secluded and unique and traffic is at a bare minimum; opening up
access will create problems.
3. Approve the Martin Road access since it has been well established.
4. Owens Drive (private road) was not constructed for public vehicular traffic.
5. Leave things Just as they are; people moved to the area to get away from
traffic.
6. Residents of Willdan Road and Pleasant Place were concerned about.their
already existing private road maintenance agreements; they did not wish to
maintain private roads for public use purposes.
Mr. Jack Hale, 6641 Eucalyptus Drive, inquired as to ~hy the City wanted to
invest City taxpayers' money on the County.
The Mayor explained that the staff initiated study was looking to the future in
order to have some orderly type of development in anticipation of petitions for
annexation to the City for service.
Mr. Rivera took issue with the statistics contained in the staff report relative
to the criteria on which the basis or the study was initiated. He pointed to
projected figures regarding traffic based on futuristic studies of density in
the Canyon. It was his opinion that the figures were not equitable or correct
because much of the land involved undevelopable areas, such as ravines, nor did
they substantiate the need for the proposed circulation.
77-196
.City Ha~l~ Anahei~.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February.~ 1~.1977~ ~:~30 P.M.
He further commented that if futuristic studies were b~ing considered, the
potential of a fire hazard would be eliminated by that time.
Mr. Larry Voyer explained that he tried to apply the EIR to the Eucalyptus Drive
area relative to Exhibit "B" and ascertained that since the drive was only 2,000
feet long, there would be more homes on one cul-de-sac to which he pointed on
the wall map than there would ever be on Eucalyptus Drive at least for the next
five years. If the Plan was approved, it would create noise, traffic and other
conditions and situations which were objectionable, detrimental and incompatible.
with the area as it was now. The present integrity, character and general
welfare of the Eucalyptus Drive area would be destroyed by making it a through
road.
Mr. Voyer further explained the impact the proposed change would have on his
property first causing the removal of a six-foot frontage off his property
which, as indicated in the EiR, could be acquired by condemnation if it were not
dedicated. He stated, however, because he already had a building site, he would
not have to dedicate the property.~
Mr. Voyer expressed the opinion that there would be no problem relative to fire
or garbage trucks traversing a twelve-foot road as the County presently never
complained about their fire trucks not being able to ascend Eucalyptus Drive.
Relative to the City's liability, Mr. Voyer learned from the NEOCCS Study that
if there was inconvenience and the residents were willing to stand the inconvenienc~
the NEOCCS Committee would try to accommodate the public's wishes. Mr. VoYer
emphasized they were willing to live with any inconvenience as evidenced by the
submitted petition.
Concerning the projection of 55 homes on Eucalyptus Drive, the residents projected
only 35. Thirty acres were involved, split to one-half acre parcels; however,
one doctor was building on five acres and not subdividing, thereby, in that
instance alone eliminating ten potential home sites.
Again pertaining to his particular situation, Mr. Voyer explained that all roads
seemed to be congregating on his property, thereby, destroying his environment
and causing a dangerous situation with traffic flow from four different directions,
whereas now it was a private road with traffic flow of only five to ten cars per
day average. If the.additional six-foot frontage was taken off his propertY, he
would have to move his proposed home site back six feet because he was on a
ridge which would cause construction costs to rise considerably.
He was concerned over the fact that even though he was not in the City, he could
not build his house the way he wanted to because of the acquisition of the six-
foot frontage. If he had to give up 1,000 square feet of his property, it would
irreparably damage his environment.
Mr. Voyer stated that all the input from the Task Force relative to the rejection
of Exhibit "B" was not taken since Exhibit "A" was what they wanted. He strongly
recon~.ended adoption of Plan "~'.
77-197
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February i.5, 197.7~ ~.:3.0 P..M.
In closing, Mr. Voyer conceded it was inevitable that people on Eucalyptus Drive
would be approached for annexation in the future because they were in the City's
sphere of influence. Assuming Exhibit "A" was adopted at this time, he asked
what was to prevent a new staff from instituting the same proposals in the
future.
The Mayor. stated there was nothing to prevent a future staff from so doing.
Councilman Seymour explained that although Mr. Voyer might feel a sense of
security with the County, in the future if a developer asked the County to
develop, he could be in much the same predicament depending upon the pressure'of
the developer.
Mr. Voyer did not agree.
Councilman Seymour, speaking for himself, indicated that if the County was
willing to serve Mr. Voyer, he would be happy to have them do so, not as a
personal affront, but because it was too expensive to bring City services to
that area.
Karen Voyer expressed her concern about the widening of Eucalyptus Drive where,
in places the width was going to be doubled from 20 feet to 40 feet with the
possibility of 32 feet of pavement. She explained that Mohler Drive presently
had only 18 feet of pavement and it served more homes than Eucalyptus Drive.
She also commented if the planned trails system for the area followed the road,
it would cause an even wider width. Her specific request was that the area
remain as it presently was.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour stated that they had to find a way to accommodate the needs
of the people living in the subject area; however, it was clear that none of
them wanted what government was selling. As evidenced by the foregoing testimony,
they wanted to leave things the way they were as depicted on Exhibit ."A" with
the exception of the access relative to Via Copala.
Speaking to the request of the Task Force to maintain an 18-foot right-of-way,
he asked the Traffic Engineer for facts regarding the funding of public streets
with an 18-foot right-of-way.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated first that. the streets were not intended
to become public but the plan was devised to provide circulation in the future
such as described in Exhibit "B". Although he did not recommend that the streets
become public at this time, he suggested that the two access points under discussion
be provided, as well as some type of reservation of easement at those two points.
He further suggested that the optimum right-of-way of 40 feet as recommended by
the Planning Commission be maintained in private ownership until the residents
of the area requested the streets to become public rather than private. He
added that the study was precipitated because developers had plans pending
relative to subdividing.
77-198
City Ha!l~...Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 19.772. 1:,30 ~.~..
Councilman Roth acknowledged that a lot of work had gone into the plan but the
result was forcing people to accept what they did not want. Therefore, he could
not support or accept any changes in the area as proposed.
Mr. Schwartze briefly explained how the plan came about, stating that the City
was required to study areas within their Sphere of Influence. In so doing, it
was discovered that the County was planning 180 degrees opposite from the City.
He commented that the County's plans might require a road coming down through
the subject area. If Exhibit "B" were approved, then the City could take the
plan to the County, thereby bringing both plans into harmony.
Relative to the.fire access, he referred to the Fire Chief's report dated
January 13, 1977, indicating the area was a fire area and also suggesting.~it would
be appropriate to have "T" intersections allowing openings for cross traffic.
Mr. Schwartze indicated the Planning Staff respected the Fire Chief's recommendations.
As long as there was a rural atmosphere, brush fires would be a potential hazard
and if more people moved into the area, more fires could occur. He stated it
was impractical to compare the subject area with a flat land fire area.
Relative to the information provided concerning density and' traffic flow, the
worst possible case was generally presented in terms of the amount of development
which could occur in relation to what people would be able to do with their
property.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Schwartze indicated the project involved
several months of work and many of the residents were knowledgable about NEOCCS
and what was going on around them.
Although Councilman Kott conceded that wha~ Mr. Schwartze said was good, true
and idealistic, but it was contrary to what the people wanted. They did not
want any more traffic, widened roads or access.
MOTION AND RESOLUTION: Councilman Kott expressed the opinion that a lot of time
and money had been wasted on a plan that the residents did not want. He, therefore,
moved to certify the EIR and offered a resolution adopting ADP 117, Exhibit "A",
which depicted the area as it was at present with no changes except for the
access road at Via Copala which was already in progress. Councilman Thom seconded
the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken on the foregoing motion and resolution, Mr. Singer
stated that if the area was left as it was, the Martin Road access would be
closed because it was not presently a legal access. He also suggested that the
median at that access be closed so that it need never be signalized and turn
movements be provided at Eucalyptus, which was a legal access, thereby minimizing
signalization to maintain the integrity of Santa Aha Canyon Road.
Mr. Schwartze indicated that in order to make the Martin Road access legal, it
would have to be done by action of the City Council in conjunction with the
County of Orange by amending access studies and having Martin Road declared as a
designated access point.
77-199
City Hall~ A~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ %,977~ ,1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour asked staff if the alternative of a special assessment district
had been explored whereby residents living in the subject area could buy their
own insurance policy so as to preclude interference.
Mr. Schwartze indicated that particular alternative had not been explored but it
was one of many alt&rnatives available. The basic proposal was that roads b4
retained .in private ownerships, but that easements be coordinated as the property
in the area developed.
Further discussion followed between Council and staff specifically revolving
around the fact that a number of parcel maps were presently pending which the
City Engineer was reluctant to approve administratively without the assurance of
having access to Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Councilman Seymour thereupon suggested that the proposed resolution include
establishment of the access point at Martin Road.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if a legal problem would be created with the City if
the Fire Chief felt the area could not be served yet the residents did not want
streets widened.
Mr. Hopkins indicated the Fire Chief would have to first determine what could be
done and if all possible was done under the existing circumstances, the City's
obligation would be satisfied. If the City were sued for negligence, Mr. Hopkins
was of the opinion that it would be successful in such litigation if, in fact,
everything possible was done in trying to provide needed services.
Councilman Seymour stated that he saw nothing wrong with Exhibit "A" and the
maintenance of an 18-foot pavement in providing City services. He, therefore,
suggested that the 18-foot standard be included as part of the resolution so
that staff could work on this basis with developers.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested an 18-foot pavement on a 24-foot right-of-way
since that was what the residents wanted.
Councilman Kott agreed to amend his resolution as proposed and offered Resolution
No. 77R-98 for adoption, adopting ADP 117, Exhibit "A" (no change) with the
following amendments: (1) 18-foot pavement on 24-foot right-of-way; (2) designation
of access point to Santa Ana Canyon Road at Martin Road, and (3) the closing of
the median at Martin Road. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 117, EXHIBIT "A".
77-200
City Ha!l~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 1977.~.1:30' P..M._
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ka)~ood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-98 duly passed and adopted.
169: AMENDMENTS TO.TITLE 15 AND 18 AND TO COUNCIL POLICY NOS. 206~ .206A~. 207
AND 207A: To consider amendment of Codes and Policies to provide uniformity of
terminology and standards for private roads, private lanes and accessways in
low-density hillside areas.
Planning Aide, Chris Garlock, explained that the proposed amendments to Council
Policies and the Anaheim Municipal Code were precipitated by the preceding Area
Development Plan since there was conflicting terminology and a variety of terms
were not clear. The purpose was to standardize and clarify this terminolgy.
After some additional explanation of the proposed amendments, Councilman Seymour
asked Miss Garlock if the proposed Changes in terminology had been discussed
with the Task Force with whom the circulation plans were previously discussed, to which
Miss Garlock indicated that the matter had not been discussed..
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the subject matter be continued until
after staff discussed the changes with the people who were going to be impacted
by the changes and subsequently come back to Council with recommendations.
Before any action was taken on the foregoing motion, Mr. Schwartze suggested
that in consideration of the fact that the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory
Committee (HACMAC) was soon to be formed, the matter should be continued for
their consideration and discussion with staff.
Councilman Seymour thereupon changed his motion and moved instead to refer the
consideration of amendments of Codes and Policies to provide uniformity of
terminology and standards for private roads, private lanes and .accessways in
low-density hillside areas to the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
177: REQUEST FOR REHEARING, VARIANCE NO. 2874: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request for rehearing on Variance No. 2874
submitted by Thomas Woodruff, Attorney for the petitioner, was approved subject
to payment of a $50 fee to help defray advertising costs. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR iTEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Kott, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
77-201
City Ha~!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FebruarM.15,. 1977, 1:30 P.M.
1. 118: CLAIb~ 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 Joyce McKay for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of being struck by a golf ball at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course
on or about January 26, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Russell Townsend for personal injuries and damages purpQrtedly
sustained as a result of action by the Anaheim Police on or about October 25,
1976.
c. Claim submitted by Ralph E. Anzevino for personal loss of $37.00 purportedly
sustained while acting as a Utility Service Worker for the City on or about
January 31, 1977.
d. Claim submitted by Mrs. Tubek for property damages purportedly sustained as
a result of power failure at 704 Sou~h Janss on or about November, 1976.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Notice of Hearing of
application of Airport Service, Incorporated, for authority to adjust its rates.
b. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Notice of Amendment to Application No. 56073 filed
with the California Public Utilities Commission, for an additional rate increase.
c. Pacific Seaboard Airlines, Inc., dba: Los Angeles Helicopter Airlines,
Application before the Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C., for a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity to offer scheduled air service between Los
Angeles International Airport, Burbank Airport, Long Beach Municipal Airport,
Van Nuys Airport, Woodland Hills, Century City and Anaheim.
d. Monthly report for January, 1977 - Building Division.
e. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of January 26, 1977.
f. Public Utilities Board - Minutes of December 16, 1976.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-99~.AND 77R-101 THROUGH 77R-106: Councilman Kott offered
Resolution Nos. 77R-99 and 77R-101 though 77R-106, 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. 77R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Eleanor Rivas; Elisabeth
Mohr; Gerald A. Scutt, et ux.; Virgie Caraglio; Frank R. Monnig, et ux.; Reubin
J. Jarmon, et-ux.; Mary E. Atwell; Mona V. Miranda; Francis L. Ricker, et ux.)
77-202
City H~ll~Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februa,ry 15, 1977, 1:30 P.M,
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND
DESIGNATED LA PALMA-~KEVIEW NO. 2 ANNEXATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ANNEXAT%ON TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND
DESIGNATED WARNER-LAMBERT NO. 2 ANNEXATION.
RESOLUTION NO. .77R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND
DESIGNATED YORBA NO. 2 ANNEXATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-104: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MODIFICATION AND INSTALLATION
OF PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INDICATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 802-A; 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 March 10, 1977, 2:00
P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-'-~
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: REHABILITATION OF THE
POLICE PISTOL ~NGE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1055; 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 CI'CY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF.
(Bidm to be March 17, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
P~SOLUTION NO. 77R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND 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 IMPRO~EM~T, TO WIT: LINCOLN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT,
SLIN-KIST STREET. TO STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, A.H.F.P. NO. 801, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NOS. 777-B & 872. (Blair Paving, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mmyor declared Remolution Nos. 77R-99 and 77R-101 through 77R-106, both
inclusive, duly pasmed and adopted.
77-203
C_ity Ha. il, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 1977~ .!.:30 P.M.
103: 'ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 18 ANNEXATION: (uninhabited, approximately 142.4'acres
located south of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Prairie Place, extended, and west of
Anaheim Hills Road).
Mayor Thom expressed his concern with the proposed annexation inasmuch as the
presentation made ~t the wind-up of the Task Force activities indicated thai the
City of Anaheim and the taxpayers would lose millions of dollars on residential
development.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Thom thereupon offered Resolution No.' 77R-100 for adoption,
denying Anaheim Hills No. 18 Annexation.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the City would lose
control over how the area was developed by such action.
Councilman Roth supported the proposed resolution so that a more in depth look
could be taken relative to the projected cost of $57 million to the taxpayer.
Further discussion followed, at the conclusion of which, Councilman Seymour
suggested that a public meeting be'held at which the matter could be discussed
more fully. He stated .he would vote against the resolution because, if the
request for annexation was denied, such denial would be an indication that the
Council had already made up its mind on the matter.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
P~SOLUTION NO. 77R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DISAPPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND
DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 18 ANNEXATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott, Roth and Thom
Kaywood and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-100 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3651 AND 3652: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance Nos. 3651 and
3652 for adoption. Refer t° Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3651: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 4.74, SECTION 4.74.050, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TOW
TRUCK DRIVER'S PERMIT. (Age requirement lowered to 18 years)
ORDINANCE NO. 3652: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SUBSECTION
18.02.050.015 PERTAINING TO CONFLICTS IN ZONING AND ADDING SECTION 8.20.030
PERTAINING TO CONFLICTS IN WILD ANIMAL CONTROLS.
77-204
City Hal!~ Anahe$m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15, !977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor.declared Ordinance Nos. 3651 and 3652 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3653: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 36.53 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3653: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-11, RS-7200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ME~ERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3653 duly passed and adopted.'
ORDINANCE NO. 3657: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3657 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3657: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44 (19), RS-5000)
109: NOMINEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION: On motion by Council-
woman'Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, support of Mrs. Sue Tsuda as a
nominee for appointment to the State Highway Commission was approved as 'recommended
in a communication received from the City of Fullerton requesting such support.
To this motion, Councilman Roth voted "No". MOTION CAP~RIED.
114: OPPOSITION TO THE REDISTRIBUTIONOF SALES TAX REVENUES ON ~{E BASIS OF POP-
ULATION: By 'general Council consent, support of the resolu'tion of the City of
Orange Opposing redistribution of the sales tax on the basis of population and
support of opposition to the resolution of the City of Yorba.Linda supporting
such redistribution was approved to be acted upon at the March Orange County
League of California Cities meeting.
148: RESOLUTIONS PASSED.AT FEBRUARY 10~ 1977 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETING:
Councilwoman Kaywood reported that at subject meeting, two resolutions were
passed, one supporting the death penalty and the other mitigating the impact of
Federal Unemployment Insurance on the City.
114: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO LEAVE STATE FOR 30 DAYS: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, CounCilman Seymour's request for permission
to leave the State for thirty days was granted. MOTION CARRIED.
77-205
~ity Hall~ .Aqaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 1977~.l~30.P.M~
120: RELOCATION OF UTILITY POLE (S.TEINKE): Councilman Kott introduced Mr. Don
Steinke, 773 Peralta Hills Drive, relative to the problem concerning a utility
pole on his property.
Mr. Steinke explaine~ that he had been trying to build a tennis court on his '
property since July, 1976, and initially met with the Utilities Department re-
garding the necessary relocation of a power pole. On July 20, 1976, he received
a letter from the City's Electrical Superintendent stating that the cost of re,'
location would be $1,100. Subsequently on September 9, 1976,' a grading plan re-
quested by Mr. Steinke was completed moving the court several feet to the east,
thereby making it unnecessary to move the pole.
Mr. Steinke then relayed the sequence of events which occurred from January,
1977 forward after the City's Electrical Inspector told his concrete contractor
not to pour because the project would not be approved. In mid January, his
electrical contractor informed him that the Planning Department would only
approve or issue a permit for 6 light standards instead of the 8 required because
two would be too close to the power pole. Further contacts with the Building
and Utilities Departments revealed that there was no easement for the power pole
to be on his property. Mr. Steinke therefore requested that the pole be relocated
off his property. Subsequently he was informed that the City had a prescriptive
right of easement relative to the location of the power pole. However, his
electrical contractor informed him that he received a permit for all 8 light
standards without any problem.
After last Tuesday's Council meeting, Mr. Steinke spoke with Electrical Superin-
tendent Edwards and Utilities Director Hoyt and was told that someone would
check out the distance of the light standards the next day. After so doing, it
was indicated that instead of relocating the pole, the City could raise it four
or five feet and it would then conform with all agencies' requirements at the
cost of $397.70. Mr. Steinke explained the permit was already issued for the 8
light standards but was told nonetheless that if he proceeded, the violation
would have to be reported to the State and also the Building Division further
stated that they would not permit him to install the second meter which they had
previously agreed upon.
Since the utility pole was not where it should be legally, Mr. Steinke's request
was to have it relocated and, most importantly, if he was required to install a
second meter, the cost of so doing would be astronomical.
Although the Mayor indicated he was not cognizant of the legal ramifications
involved, he suggested that the matter be investigated by the City Manager and
the City Attorney resulting in a satisfactory solution to the problem at no cost
to Mr. Steinke.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that there was justification for the prescriptive
easement and there were legal cases to support such easements as well as codes
pertaining to same.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the problem was
referred to the City Manager and City Attorney for resolution at no cost to Mr.
Steinke. MOTION CARRIED.
77-206
.city. Hal!~ ~Baheim, .qa14fo. rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES- February 15.~...~.977,..!:30 ~.M~
139: OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 164: Councilman Roth referred to a memo received
from the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities, dated
February 11, 1977 requesting support in opposition to Senate Bill 164 proposing
compulsory and binding arbitration in public employees labor disputes.
On motion by Councilmah Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, approval was given ,
for a letter to be sent to the members of the State Senate who were members of
the Senat~ Committee on Government Organizations opposing Senate Bill 164.
MOTION CARRIED.
ll5:..CIVIC gENTER PROJECT - SECOND ROUND OF FEDERAL FUNDING: The Mayor explained
that a second round of Federal EDA funding, was going to be available. Initial
information indicated that projects submitted in the first round and subsequently
not approved would be given priority as far as funding potential in the second
round. He requested that the Civic Center Project be prepared for resubmission
by first attempting to make it conform to the new energy standards 'already
established by the State of California and secondly, schedule a date for a
public hearing in order to receive as much public testimony as possible relative
to the desirability of submitting the project for funding, as well as discussion
concerning the location. He commented that the Citizens' Capital Improvement
Subcommittee suggested that the Harbor Boulevard site be considered as opposed
to the present site of City Hall. He stated, however, that since the location
of a new City Hall was fixed in 1970 by referendum at its present location, it
was his opinion any discussion of location was not proper in a public hearing
because the decision as to location had already been made and confirmed by the
electorate.
Councilman Seymour indicated that if a public hearing was going to be held on
the matter, there would be small minorities wanting to discuss location and it
would, be difficult to preclude them from so doing.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, relative to the
Civic Center Project, staff was directed to investigate its conformance with
established energy standards, and public hearing was scheduled for March 1,
1977, at 7:30 p.m. at the Chartres Recreation Center to receive input on the
desirability of submitting the project for the second round of EDA funding.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth requested that~the press give wide publicity to the scheduled
public hearing.
P~ECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Kott moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:48 P.M.)
153: RATES OF COb~ENSATION~ GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS UNION AND SERVICE AND HOSPITAl.
Eb~LOYEES UNION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 77R-107 and 77R-108
for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
77-207
_City .Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 15~ 19.77, I:30.P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COPfPENSATION FOR PART-TIME JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE
GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 235 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-91.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R,'108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~NAH~IM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR PART-TIME JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE
SERVICE AND HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 399 AND REPEALiMG RESOLUTION
NOS. 74R-89, 74R-90, 74R-134 AND 76R-184.
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-107 and 77R-108 duly passed and adopted.
123: RECRUITMENT FOR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Manager and City Attorney were authorized
to prepare an agreement with Heidrick & Struggles for professional services to
assist in recruitment for a Director of Finance'for the City. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:50 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK