1977/12/13 77-1343
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 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
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Welton of the West Anaheim United Methodist Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, minutes of
the regular meetings iheld November 15, 22, and 29, 1977, were approved subject to
corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,691,553.55, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
174: TITLE III, OLDER AMERICANS ACT - FUNDING APPLICATION: Councilman Kott
offered Resolution No. 77R-787 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
December 6, 1977, from James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts
Department. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-787: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS UNDER TITLE III OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF
1965, AS AMENDED IN 1973, FOR UPGRADING OF THE CITY'S EXISTING SENIOR CITIZENS'
CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY APPLICATION
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
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-787 duly passed and adopted.
77-1344
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
~]~: AWARD OF BID - DALE/SYCAMORE GYM PROJECTS: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, award of bid for the Dale/Sycamore Gym-
nasium projects to Marcus P. South and Associates in the amount of $780,344,
to be shared jointly by Anaheim Union High School District and the City, was
approved as recommended in memorandum dated December 6, 1977, from the Director
of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. MOTION CARRIED.
123: RENEWAL OF AIR MONITORING STATION AT CHAPARRAL PARK: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 77R-788 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
December 6, 1977, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-788: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT GRANTING XONICS, INC.
A LICENSE TO PERFORM CERTAIN ENGINEERING SERVICES AT THE CHAPARRAL PARK SITE IN
ANAHEIM.
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-788 duly passed and adopted.
123: RETIREMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION (PERS): Councilman Kott questioned City
Manager Talley as to whether or not he was aware of any other studies of the
same nature conducted by other cities.
Mr. Talley explained that he was aware of such studies and the primary benefit
to be gained if the plan were dropped would be an increased amount of money earned
from investments.
Councilman Kott stated that before he would vote for an expenditure of $9,000, he
recommended contacting the City's employee groups to ascertain if they were dissatis-
fied with the present system.
The Mayor stated that he was concerned over the negative press relative to various
cities and their retirement systems and the only system that did not receive adverse
comments was the State Public Employees Retirement System of which the City was a
member. He emphasized the point that the City Charter stated that Anaheim was to
remain a member of the state system unless and until the electorate voted to change
it. Thus, irrespective of the study, nothing could be done except to place the
issue on the ballot which was moot in light of the financial problems other cities
had experienced with self-funded systems.
Personnel Director Garry McRae first explained that Hay, Huggins, Benefit Consul-
tants, was the major benefit consulting firm in California recommended to the
City by Warren, McVeigh & Griffin, the firm currently evaluating the City's entire
Risk Management Program. Funds had been budgeted for the study to answer questions
posed over the last several years relative to the appropriateness of the benefits
versus the cost of the PERS program and in order to obtain a more definitive basis
for continuing exploration. Mr. McRae considered it an obligation to make certain
the City was getting the best for the money and that was the basis for the proposal.
77-1345
~ity Hali~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
They did not approach any of the employee organizations because they first needed
to know if there were any advantages to be gained by looking at alternative methods.
Further discussion followed between the Council and City Manager Talley, wherein
Mr. Talley stated he would submit the recommendation to employee groups asking if
they wished to submit any type of written comment, to be directed to the City Clerk.
He did not, however, believe the City should be guided by any such input because
of the financial implications involved.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of an
agreement with Hay, Huggins, Benefit Consultants to determine a less costly alter-
native to participation in California's Public Employee Retirement System (PERS)
was continued for two weeks to solicit employee organization input. MOTION CARRIED.
137: EMPLOYEE GROUP LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN: On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposal of Standard Insurance Company of Oregon
to provide employee long-term disability insurance effective January 1, 1978,
expiring December 31, 1978, and authorizing the Personnel Director to sign the
application and payment of the initial premium deposit, was approved as recommended
in memorandum dated December 6, 1977, from the Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED.
158: QUITCLAIM DEED RELINQUISHING CERTAIN VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS: (Hayward
Street across Parcel A) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-789 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated December 7, 1977, from Annika Santalahti, Assis-
tant Director for Zoning. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-789: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED RELINQUISHING
CERTAIN VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED TO THE CITY. (Alfred D. and
Josephine Paino, 70-71-51)
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-789 duly passed and adopted.
156/152: COURTESY FINGERPRINTING: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-790
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 7, 1977, from Chief of
Police Harold Bastrup. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-790: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING CHARGES FOR COURTESY FINGERPRINTING PERFORMED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
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-790 duly passed and adopted.
77-1346
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
153: PROJECT MANAGER FOR CIVIC CENTER: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the addition of the position of Project Manager--
Civic Center, to the Engineering Division during the time of construction of
the Civic Center, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated December 6,
1977, from Thornton Piersall, Director of Public Works. Councilman Kott voted
"No". MOTION CARRIED.
149: REMOVAL OF PARKING METERS FROM PROJECT ALPHA AREA: City Engineer James
Maddox explained for Councilman Kott that the parking meters would be reusable and
would be stored with the idea of reusing them in the future.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Traffic Engineer
was authorized to remove parking meters as necessary to accommodate the construction
within the Redevelopment Project Alpha Area as recommended in memorandum dated
November 30, 1977, from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
105: FINAL REPORT OF THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE OF THE ANAheIM CITIZENS' CAPITAl.
IMPROVEMENTS COMMIIT~ 1976-77: Councilman Seymour questioned Mr. Norman Cellers,
Chairman of the subject committee, relative to the supply line from the Diemer
Treatment Plant discussed on page 1 of the Water Utility Report dated October 3,
1977, IIIA (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He wanted to know if the Committee
had evaluated that project in depth.
Mr. Cellers explained that as of the date of the report, the committee gave the
matter close analysis and their recommendation was to proceed on the project,
choosing the most economical financing alternative.
Councilman Kott questioned whether or not the committee considered Orange County
Feeder No. 2. Mr. Cellers, however, was presently unable to provide that informa-
tion.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the final report
of the Utilities Committee of the Anaheim Citizens' Capital Improvements Comnzittee,
1976-77 was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
116: FUND TRANSFER FOR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT OF RETAIL TAX REPORT: At Councilman
Kott's request, City Manager Talley explained the purpose and subsequent benefits
that would accrue to the City as a result of the proposed system development as
outlined in report dated November 30, 1977, from Audit Supervisor Young Choi.
After a brief discussion between the Council relative to further ramifications and
subsequent benefits of the program, Councilman Seymour moved to authorize a transfer
of $2,580 from the Council Contingency Fund to Program Development and Audit for
system development of a Retail Tax Report. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth questioned the status of the evaluation previously requested regard-
ing the possibility of eliminating the business license fee because of the costs
involved or upgrading it accordingly.
City Manager Talley stated that in accordance with Council's request, a report had
been prepared by Program Development and Audit and circulated to City staff. After
the appropriate departments had an opportunity to review the matter, a report would
be submitted to the Council.
77-1347
~ity Hall,...Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
158: ESCROW INSTRUCTION AND AGREEMENT -- SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AT ORANGEWOOD
AND RAMPART: (Sunset Construction Company) The City Clerk clarified for Councilman
Seymour that the $50,000 deposit spelled out in the subject escrow instructions was
presently in the City's possession.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-791 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-791: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS AND AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SURPLUS
PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GENERALLY LOCATED AT ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND RAMPART
STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID INSTRUCTIONS AND
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-791 duly passed and adopted.
131: ROUTE 57 FREEWAY SOUND BARRIER WALL: Mr. Frank Gleason, 840 South Chantilly,
briefed the Council on the two meetings held with Caltrans and the affected resi-
dents relative to the subject barrier wall between Ball Road and La Palma Avenue
on the Route 57 Freeway. He explained they were endeavoring to submit an emergency
resolution to Sacramento by December 15, 1977, in time for the Highway Commission
meeting to insure that construction would take place no later than 1979.
Madeline Krpan, 1127 South Chantilly, Aesthetic Advisor, then read aloud the position
statement of the 18-member ad hoc committee formed to facilitate the implementation
of the sound and safety barrier, which committee all agreed on a barrier measuring
12 to 15 feet in height to be constructed next to existing homeowner walls.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, staff was directed
to redraft the position statement encompassing the wording in a resolution subsequently
to be sent to Sacramento. MOTION CARRIED.
145: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Thom, consideration of the designation of a Solid Waste
Management Enforcement Agency as recommended by the Orange County Board of Super-
visors was rescheduled to January 10, 1978, at the request of staff. MOTION CARRIED.
170: REQUEST - ANAHEIM VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - AMENDMENT TO CC&Rs~ TRACT
NO. 5438 (GRAMMERCY PARK): (continued from November 29, 1977) On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, request for continuance of the subject
to December 27, 1977, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: City Manager Talley briefed
the Council on his report dated December 12, 1977, requested by the Council listing
three local organizations in the City who applied for and received authorization to
paint house numbers on curbs during or approximately in the same period as that re-
quested by Tustin High School. However, no local high school had applied.
77-1348
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, application for
Solicitation of Charity Funds by the Tustin High School Band and Drill Team to
paint house numbers on street curbs, November 26 through December 26, 1977, was
denied. MOTION CARRIED.
105: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS - PROPOSED PARTICIPATION IN THE
DIEMER FILTRATION PLANT/SANTIAGO AQUEDUCT INTERTIE PROJECT (DIEMER INTERTIE):
(Continued from December 6, 1977) Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt explained that
Water Superintendent Ray Auerbach was present as well as representatives from
the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) to answer any questions
relative to the proposed project.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Hoyt if there was any other area of the City that
did not have an alternative source of water.
Mr. Hoyt answered there was none.
Thereupon, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to certify as having reviewed and considered
the information contained in the environmental impact report prepared by MWDOC
(lead agency). Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilmen Kott and Thom
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Hoyt then continued that the second motion would be to approve the Diemer
Intertie agreements and authorize the Utilities Director to execute the said
agreements with such minor changes as may be needed during the course of approval
(see minutes of December 6, 1977 outlining changes).
Water Superintendent Ray Auerbach in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, stated that
the costs for the project ($2,736,000) were not included in the Santa Ana Canyon
General Plan Amendment study done by the Water Division, but costs at that time
included one of the other alternatives to the proposed project, that being Orange
County Feeder No. 2, costs for which were approximately $2.6 million at this time.
Councilman Roth stated he was supporting the proposed Diemer Intertie in view of
the tremendous water shortage which occurred in the past year, especially in Marin
County as a result of environmentalists trying to stop growth and preventing the
building of reservoirs. He thereupon moved to authorize an agreement with the MW-DOC
in connection with the construction, operation and maintenance of the Diemer Filtra-
tion Plant/Santiago Aqueduct Intertie. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott took issue with Councilman Roth's analogy
and wanted to know how an agreement instituting the Diemer Intertie Project could
assure that water would be flowing through that system because, in essence, the
agreement was merely authorizing construction of an additional means to bring water
from the intertie to Anaheim Hills.
The Mayor stated the obvious thrust of the Diemer Intertie was not to serve existing
and heretofore past developments in the Santa Ana Canyon, but to open up additional
areas adjacent to the Canyon out to the County line at the expense of the Anaheim
user today for the benefit of the property owner and developer of the future. Future
use and not present day use was the proposition.
77-1349
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
For clarification, Mr. Hoyt explained it was the Utilities Department current policy
that when a developer developed land, he paid through an acreage fee for the primary
distribution main system and furnished and installed the secondary main system (water
mains and surfaces) on the streets within the development and subsequently dedicated
those improvements to the City which the City then accepted for maintenance. Thus,
there was no initial capital investment involved on the part of the City either in
primary or secondary distribution main systems. It was also a past policy of the
City that the water users, at-large, pay for production and transmission facilities
including storage facilities.
The Mayor contended that what was being discussed was opening up an entirely new
area east of the Canyon.
Mr. Auerbach then explained for Councilman Seymour the terms of the proposed intertie,
working from a map of the area (see minutes of December 6, 1977). In concluding, he
confirmed that those projects now approved plus approximately one-half of the remain-
ing property owned by Anaheim Hills could be served with water but nothing beyond
that.
Discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Auerbach relative to the proposed
extension of Serrano tying in with Weir Canyon.
Mrs. Dinndorf stated that according to the presentation by NEOCCS to HACMAC,
the Serrano extension was tied up because there were 6 people voting against the
extension. Weir Canyon, which was going to be called Monte Vista, was apparently
going to come through the hills, but would not go across the hills. An alternative
means of circulation being discussed was a corridor along Weir Canyon that would
take traffic from Chino and Ontario through to the Irvine industrial complex which
should relieve Santa Ana Canyon Road to some degree.
Mrs. Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, continued
relative to the water issue and explained that on September 12, 1977, she wrote a
letter to Sandy Gaffney of Phillips Brandt Reddick, who prepared the supplemental
EIR on the Diemer Intertie. As a member of the Hill and Canyon Task Force, it was
determined after two years study, to approve population in the Canyon of 48,000
residents over the next 25 years, bringing the total Canyon population to over
65,000. Since the maximum supportable population with the Diemer Intertie would be
85,600 or 20,600 more than the General Plan Amendment indicated, there was no
immediate need for the increased water facilities from the Diemer Plant. Also, even
with the study made on the GPA adopted in March, it was going to cost $57.43 million
to be paid by the entire City of Anaheim to develop the entire area to the projected
population of 65,000.
Mrs. Dinndorf continued that some of the deficiencies in the EIR included non-
conformance to studies by SCAG, SEOCCS and there was no mention of the current
NEOCCS. She also phoned Sacramento and they asked her to check with the City
Attorney to see if the EIR complied with Government Code Section 65402, finding
of fact, and to ascertain whether or not the proposal conformed to the City's
General Plan.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the section referred to was part of Chapter 3,
Local Plan, of the Government Code, and under Section 65700, it stated the provisions
of the Chapter, including Section 65402, shall not apply to charter cities except to
the extent that it may be adopted by the charter city. In his opinion, it did not
apply to Anaheim as a charter city.
77-1350
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Dinndorf further questioned the reference in the letter from Phillips Brandt
Reddick that the purchase of East Orange County Feeder No. 2 was presently subject
to negotiation between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
Anaheim and Santa Ana Water Departments, the Coastal Metropolitan Water District
and MW-DOC, but the terms of reimbursement had not yet been arranged. She contended
that if the City was going to spend $3 million, there should be a return on a feeder
line presently in existence which was servicing most of the subject area without
any additional expenditure of funds. In closing, she maintained that conservation,
as opposed to ongoing construction, would eliminate to some extent the need for more
pipelines. She did not want the City to spend the amount needed for the proposed
intertie and she personally wanted to see the growth of the area controlled to a
certain extent.
Discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mrs. Dinndorf, wherein Council-
woman Kaywood took issue with the fact that she (Dinndorf) indicated that a total
maximum of 65,000 residents could be served, whereas that was contrary to Mr. Auerbach's
report.
Mr. Auerbach confirmed that the ultimate 65,000 could not be served with their present
capabilities which would peak at approximately 30,000 residents, less than one-half
of the projected 65,000 population. He explained however, that some of the Canyon
population was not served from that source since it covered areas on the north side
of the Riverside Freeway, La Palma Avenue north of the river and the area west of
Imperial. Those areas were presently served from the East Orange County Feeder
No. 2. Mr. Auerbach showed from the map some of the area that could be served with
Feeder No. 2 as an alternative method. He emphasized that in so doing, it would be
approximately $1 million more expensive to go back to that feeder and construct a
transmission main and a pumping station to provide backup water into the subject
area, than constructing the Diemer Intertie. All of the study figures on population
were based on the maximum Canyon population of 65,000 and service from the Diemer
Intertie and the Filter Plant would only serve approximately 55,000 people with
about 10,000 being served from another source at present. They could not serve
future proposed development of Anaheim Hills from present sources.
Upon questioning by Councilman Seymour, Mrs. Dinndorf stated she was still in
support of the General Plan that was amended in March with the 65,000 population,
but she wanted to postpone the proposed project. She had not been given a copy
of the final EIR and as she was going through the draft, she was concerned about
the costs and the fact that all problems in her opinion had not been resolved.
She was also not convinced there was a need for another supply of water to get to
the 65,000 population figure.
Mr. Auerbach then clarified the following as a result of questions posed by the
Council: there was a need for more water than could be provided from the plant
at present. An alternate would be to add on to the filter plant by doubling its
capacity, but an additional small capacity would still be needed in the Diemer Intertie.
Although the intertie would be built whether or not Anaheim participated, the capacity
would not be sufficient if Anaheim did not initially participate but wished to do so
in the future. He then explained the flexible water system Anaheim possessed from
which 70 percent of its water was obtained from an underground basin with the re-
maining 30 percent coming from MWD connections. If the MWD connections were out of
service for some reason, more water could be pumped from the wells. This was true
of the flat land areas of the City, but in the Canyon area, the only source was the
77-1351
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Walnut Canyon Reservoir and the filter plant. If the filter plant was out of service,
there was no alternate source. There had never been any interruption of service
at the plant except for maintenance. However, if a problem occurred at the filter
plant which could not be solved in a few hours, this essentially would cause people
to be out of water in the major portion of Anaheim Hills and the Canyon area. That
was one of the reasons for the second source of water, the other being the anticipated
growth relative to the GPA, to at least supply a token amount of water for emergency
purposes not necessarily in the capacity being proposed. A second source of water
was consistent with sound planning, and they considered it to be a good engineering
practice. An additional reservoir could only provide storage capability, not a source
of water. In order to serve a long outage of water for several days to a week, the
cost of storage was overwhelming compared to another pipeline. The cost to satisfy
the needs of the existing population in the area for three days would be approximately
$2.7 million for 30 million gallons of storage. Thus, the storage capacity would
cost as much as participation in the intertie. The storage could be built but
without a means of filling the reservoirs.
Councilman Seymour stated he was of the opinion that the proposal being discussed
was meeting the needs of the General Plan as amended, but even if that was not so
and the Council were to adopt a total no growth moratorium, sound engineering plan-
ning would require the development of another solution to supply emergency water
needs, and not merely in the form of a reservoir.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Auerbach explained that the cost for providing an
emergency source of water would not be the same as that proposed for the Diemer
Intertie because the capacity necessary would be less than one-half of what was
being proposed. He clarified that was for an emergency source of water only.
Councilman Kott stated that in his opinion, the proposed Diemer Intertie would
serve undeveloped areas of the Canyon and the basic beneficiaries would be ranchers,
developers, builders, realtors and people associated with the sale of property. Thus,
it was his belief that those people should pay for the project and not the citizens
and taxpayers in the flat lands who already had the water they needed and basically
would receive little or no benefit from the proposed project. On that basis, he
would have to vote no.
Councilman Seymour then spoke in support of the motion, stating, if in fact, it was
the desire of the Council to control, limit or eliminate growth, then the question
should be taken under consideration and through proper public hearings determine
whether or not the citizens were now in a position to change their minds relative
to decisions made when the General Plan Amendment was adopted in March. He was
not aware of any outcry from the citizenry asking that the unanimous vote adopting
the plan be amended. Further, there was no doubt who was going to pay for
the project. As the Utilities Director explained, it would be the developer, and
as well, new families moving into Anaheim as development occurred, because such
costs would be added to the costs of new housing.
Mr. Hoyt interjected and confirmed that developers, through acreage fees, paid for
the primary and secondary mains but the water users at large customarily paid for
production, transmission and storage facilities with the exception of those storage
facilities in high elevation districts and those were paid for through a surcharge.
77-1352
_City Hall, An~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour explained however, that existing taxpayers and current residents
would not be paying the total costs, but it would be passed on to the new people
coming in, as well as a sharing of those already present. He agreed with Councilman
Roth's assessment relative to the type of disaster that could occur such as that in
Marin County due to the lack of long-term planning. The need was to develop another
supply of water in the event of a disaster or maintenance problems where citizens
already living in the area would not have water they needed, because of the Council's
short-sightedness in preparing for such occurrences.
Relative to the development aspect, the matter had been discussed and debated for
two years by a 15-member panel covering the entire spectrum, type and quality of
development, considering the future population for that planning area. He reiterated
they unanimously concluded that the amended General Plan approved by the Council
was what they wanted to see in the future.
Discussion then followed wherein Mr. Auerbach clarified for CouncilwOman Kaywood
that those paying for the Walnut Canyon Reserv0ir were the general'water rate payers
of the City, as well as for other facilities built in the Canyon. Mr. Hoyt further
clarified that the Walnut Canyon Reservoir and its transmission system was built
with general obligation bonds of the City to the extent that water rate payers
existing and new were repaying general funds for payments on those bonds.
Mr. Sam Gaylord, 283 Del Giorgio, representing Santa Ana Canyon Property Owners
Association, first stated that they were against adding to taxpayers' bills by
helping someone else get water. It was also his understanding there was a
second source in the ground.
Mr. Auerbach explained there were two sources in Anaheim, but it was not feasible
to take ground water from wells and pump it into the Canyon area without an expense
far in excess of the projects proposed. He also clarified for Mr. Gaylord there was
water in the Walnut Canyon Reservoir that could be used in an extreme emergency. He
explained further that in the studies relating to the General Plan Amendment there
were several alternative methods of supplying water, but the Diemer Intertie was not
fully designed at the time. In March, they did not have any idea of the costs in-
volved although they knew there was a possibility of using that source of water.
However, other methods were considered and presented in the cost data at the time
of the GPA.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Roth and carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, a sub-lease agreement
with the Municipal Water District of Orange County in connection with the construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of the Diemer Filtration Plan/Santiago Aqueduct
Intertie was authorized. Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (3:22 P.M.)
77-1353
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Kott. (3:27 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1758: Application by Herrick and Janice
W. Hanson, to permit on-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property located at 5205 East
Orangethorpe Avenue.
Review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Kott at the
meeting of November 15, 1977, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-231, reported that the
Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the defini-
tion of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR, and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1758.
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.
Miss Santalahti confirmed for Councilman Roth the proposal did consist of the
required 25 percent kitchen area or 260 square feet. The Planning Commission
denied the conditional use permit on the basis that sandwiches only were proposed
to be served as opposed to the establishment being a restaurant.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Councilman Kott returned to the Council Chamber. (3:29 P.M.)
Mr. Herrick Hanson, 1091 La Limonar Road, Santa Ana, explained that the man that
was going to be operator of the restaurant in the shopping center which he (Hanson)
owned chose to acquire another facility on his own to carry forth that aspect which
he had planned for Mr. Hanson, namely operating a beer bar. Thus, currently they
were discussing the operation of a Mexican-style restaurant to serve hot food at
the subject location similar to the Knowlwood Restaurant and not too distant
from them. They still plan to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The kitchen
area would be at least 25 percent of the total area in the facility. It was a
completely different proposal with the same owner, but different applicant. He did
want beer and wine in the Mexican restaurant, and he stipulated for Councilwoman
Kaywood that it would be served with food only.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that if Council approved the conditional use permit,
he recommended that the findings of the Planning Commission be reversed.
Councilman Kott asked Miss Santalahti if recent beer and wine licenses issued had
the requirement that these beverages be served with food.
Miss Santalahti explained that the requirement was not automatic, but it was typical
that each time on-sale beer and wine was proposed along with a restaurant operation,
the Planning Commission normally made that a condition of approval.
77-1354
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-792 for adoption, granting Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1758, thus reversing the findings of the Planning Commission,
subject to the following condition, with the stipulation that beer and wine would
be served with food only.
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-792: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1758.
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-792 duly passed and adopted.
121: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY: To determine public interest and
necessity to acquire excess land owned by the State of California adjacent to and
east of Anaheim Stadium, estimated to contain 7.09 acres.
Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, recommended that the
City proceed with the condemnation of the subject property because it had a unique
and specific use in conjunction with Anaheim Stadium, and it was an important acquisi-
tion for the continuing Stadium program.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or opposition; there being
no reponse, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-793 for adoption, approving the
subject condemnation. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-793: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. (adjacent to and east
of Anaheim Stadium)
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-793 duly passed and adopted.
77-1355
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS & SAFETY LIGHTING:
(Account No. 12-4309-712-16-0812) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-794
for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated December 5, 1977, from the City
Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-794: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTER-
SECTION OF PACIFICO AVENUE AND STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-712-16-0812. (Steiny and Company, Inc., $48,800)
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-794 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - LARGE CAB/CHASSIS - BID NO. 3337: On motion by
Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of McCoy Ford on Item
No. 1 was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $18,535.02, including
tax, and the low bid of International Harvester on Item Nos. 2 and 3 was accepted
and purchase authorized in the amount of $19,424.51, including tax, as recommended
in memorandum dated December 2, 1977, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FOUR ITEMS OF PLAY EQUIPMENT - BID NO. 3344: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of Game Time, Inc.,
was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $11,356.84, including tax, as
recommended in memorandum dated December 8, 1977, from Louis Keller, Buyer. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH PCB-UPI - ACCESS ROAD TO
WALNUT CANYON RESERVOIR: Recommendations regarding the proposed agreement with
PCB-UPI Company to grant the City fee title to a sixteen-foot strip of land used
as an access road to Walnut Canyon Reservoir.
Councilman Roth first stated that the piecemeal action proposed needed more study.
The proposal to move part of the fence to the outer portion of the road would not
prevent trespassers from fishing and swimming in the reservoir, but it would deny
access to those law-abiding citizens who wanted to use it for jogging, walking or
bike riding around the reservoir. He noted by personal observation, that trespassers
parked their cars in the tract area, walked through the greenbelt and climbed the
fence. He believed there was a definite need for new signing on the reservoir fence
indicating it was a misdemeanor to trespass with a find up to $150 for so doing.
Publicity was needed in the Anaheim Hills News Times informing the citizenry of
the consequences, as well as pointing out the dangers of swimming in the reservoir.
He did not favor any action being taken today since it was premature, but recommended
instead a study of the entire fence area around Walnut Canyon Resevoir.
77-1356
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Utilities Director Hoyt explained that Anaheim Hills had sold the subject property
to a developer which property was now in escrow. It was advisable at this point
to execute an agreement with PCB-UPI relative to granting the City fee title to
the sixteen-foot strip of land used as the access road to Walnut Canyon Reservoir
than to deal later with a number of homeowners one-by-one. He also asked Mr.
Auerbach to address the desirability of limiting access on the perimeter road.
Mr. Auerbach explained that they shared Councilman Roth's concern relative to
security problems, and from the Water Division's standpoint, they would rather not
have people on the road. He conceded that perhaps further study was necessary but
reiterated the problem involving the sale of essentially 19 lots along the access
road and within a month or two the City would have to deal with 19 people, as opposed
to only the developer at this time. Their proposal was to move the fence, the
developer would then construct a wrought iron fence, and the City would get the fee
title. Under the proposed agreement, if at a later time the City chose to open the
road to jogging or the like, it would then have the possibility of doing so. They
would lose the flexibility of being able to use that portion of the road for any-
thing unless the agreement was authorized. Although the City would have an easement,
it would be for access purposes only because the individual property owners would
have the right to fence the road so long as they provided a gate and the necessary
access.
Councilman Seymour maintained the question was to take action on the matter
immediately while the property was under one ownership, rather than lose control
and be forced to deal with 19 homeowners. Also, there were presently many miles
of hiking and riding trails in the Anaheim Hills area and many more were projected.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that since the Walnut Canyon Reservoir
was used for the City's drinking water supply and emergency use, the City could
not afford to open the area to the public without constraints.
A brief discussion followed relative to costs involved in moving the fence, as well
as additional ramifications of the proposed agreement, at the conclusion of which
Councilman Roth reiterated his concern over the need for additional study and his
opposition to the piecemeal action being considered.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-795 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated December 6, 1977, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-795: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND PCB-UPI COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-795 duly passed and adopted.
77-1357
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - SUNDESERT NUCLEAR PLANT, PLANNING AND FEASIBILITY
STUDY BUDGET, RESOLUTION NO. 1: With reference to memorandum dated December 1,
1977, the Mayor questioned Utilities Director Hoyt on Item 3, wherein it was
recommended that an additional $300,000 for the Sundesert Project Feasibility
Studies be appropriated from available electrical revenue bond proceeds. He
wanted to know the amount already expended on such studies.
Mr. Hoyt stated that thus far, $1,290,650 had been expended on the studies, and
the estimated total cost of the Sundesert Nuclear Project, depending on the time
frame in which it would be built, would be approximately $3 billion, of which
Anaheim's share was five percent. The amount of the City's financing requirements
would be approximately $140,400,000 as estimated by R. W. Beck in their May 11,
1977 letter.
The Mayor pointed out that of the $150 million approved for the project, $80 million
was left; therefore, funds were insufficent to buy into the project at the present
time.
Mr. Hoyt confirmed that was true, and it would take another vote of the people for
additional monies to continue to participate.
Councilman Seymour then questioned Mr. Hoyt relative to the purpose of the original
$150 million bond issue, whether or not the investments of the monies in feasibility
studies was in accordance with the intent of the bond issue, and if it was proper
for the Council to grant such expenditures.
Mr. Hoyt first explained that the purpose of the bond issue was for the City to
engage in bulk power supply, mnd the generation and transmission of electricty,
providing savings to utility customers when generation took place. Mr. Hoyt
emphasized that it was proper and within the Council's power to authorize expen-
ditures for the feasibility studies that were necessary. City Attorney Hopkins
concurred in the opinion that it was within the intent of the bond issue. The
proposed cost of $25,813,000 which would be increasing to $31,813,000 was not an
unreasonable amount for feasibility studies for a plan destined to produce 1,900 mgw
of power. The cost on the Sundesert Project was higher than the plants going before
it, but it was not out of line. He emphasized there was no other way of getting into
the generation business without going into the feasibility studies.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve an increase in the Sundesert Nuclear
Project Planning and Feasibility Study Budget of $6 million (City's share 5%); to
authorize the Utilities Director to execute Resolution No. 1 for said increase;
and to appropriate an additional $300,000 for the Project from available electric
revenue bond proceeds, as recommended in memorandum dated December 1, 1977, from
the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, a brief discussion ensued between the Mayor and Council-
man Seymour wherein the Mayor contended there were never enough funds to buy into
the project initially, thus studies were being conducted on something there was
not enough money to accomplish in any case, and the alternative was to recognize
the futility of ever delivering the 25 percent savings promised to the citizens.
Councilman Seymour contended the people who voted for the bond issue did not believe
that and until the electorate changed its mind, it was the Council's responsibility
to carry out what they intended.
77-1358
City Hall~ ~Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not consider it prudent to proceed because the
ultimate outcome would be another bond issue. In all good conscience, he could
not vote an additional $300,000 expenditure that, at best, would indicate it neces-
sary to go to the people for another bond issue for $60 million to $70 million on
this one item alone.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
MOTION CARRIED.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - AMENDMENT NOS. 2 AND 3 TO INTERMOUNTAIN POWER
PROJECT MEMBERSHIP AND STUDY AGREEMENT AND INTERMOUNTAIN TRANSFER AGREEMENT:
Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt briefed the Council on memorandum dated December 1,
1977, from the Public Utilities Board which discussed in detail the prOposed amend-
ments and agreement, attached to which was a copy of the seven principal documents
as drafted by the IPP Legal Committee (on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Thereupon both Mr. Hoyt and Special Counsel, Alan Watts, clarified questions posed
by Councilman Seymour concerning ad valorem taxes (page 15 of "Statement of Offer
to Prospective Purchases of Energy Output of IPP") as well as other ramifications
of the amendments and transfer agreement. At the conclusion of discussion, it was
ascertained that the amendments and the agreement, in essence, were saying that the
City was getting a smaller percentage of interest in the potential capacity of the
project for a proportionately smaller investment than initially it intended to make.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Amendment Nos.
2 and 3 to the Intermountain Power Project Membership and Study Agreement, extend-
ing the term to December 31, 1979 and authorizing IPP to execute the Transfer
Agreement, and authorization for the Utilities Director to execute both amendments
were approved. Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
105: YOUTH COMMISSION - APPROVAL OF BY-LAWS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Kott, the Youth Commission by-laws, as submitted in memorandum dated
December 7, 1977, by the Youth Commission Chairman, were approved. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: (Arthritis Foundation) Council-
man Kott asked City Attorney Hopkins if a list of solicitors had been submitted as
required under Item 8D of the subject application.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he did not have the list, but it would go to the Police
Department when it was prepared and after approval was granted.
Councilman Kott thereupon moved to deny the application for Solicitation of Charity
Funds by the Arthritis Foundation for limited neighborhood door-to-door solicitation
to finance the Chapter's medical and service program for 1977-78, for the month
of February 1978, since it was incomplete in that it did not include a list of
solicitors and in accordance with previous Council policy denying door-to-door
solicitation for organizations not based in Anaheim. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
77-1359
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
124: WAIVER OF PARKING FEES FOR PATRIOTIC MUSIC FESTIVAL: Councilman Kott moved
to approve the request of Dr. James D. Brier, Superintendent, Anaheim City School
District, requesting waiver of parking fees at the Convention Center for the
Patriotic Music Festival to be presented by the Anaheim elementary schools on
April 20, 1978, since such action had been taken in the past. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that a waiver had been
granted to the Carrousel for which the City was a co-sponsor. However, the
Carrousel program had since been eliminated.
Mr. Liegler explained the difficulty in arriving at his recommendation of denial
since the Festival was a portion of the Carrousel of Anaheim Program, the only
event given gratis parking at the Convention Center. They did over-extend
themselves in working with the School District in this instance by giving them
free rental on the existing AUHSD Bond Agreement. Thus, he recommended in
accordance with past City Council policy, to charge for parking for the event.
Thereupon, Councilman Kott withdrew his motion and Councilman Seymour withdrew
his second.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, waiver of parking fees
at the Convention Center for the Patriotic Music Festival on April 20, 1978, was
denied, as recommended in memorandum dated December 6, 1977, from the Stadium, Con-
vention Center-Golf Director and December 6, 1977 memorandum from the Finance
Director. MOTION CARRIED.
lil: ANAHEIM HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL: Mr. Stewart Link, President, Halloween
Festival, presented a final statement of income and expenses on the Festival
and parade, reflecting a deficit of $5,659.23.
Councilman Seymour moved to expend $5,660 from the Council Contingency Fund to
cover the Anaheim Halloween Festival deficit. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood posed a question to Mr. Link relative
to the pre-parade show and the plans for next year, and Councilman Kott inquired as
to the possibility of obtaining donations from private industry to cover the cost
of the show.
Mr. Link stated they were in the process of discussion with Mr. Tommy Walker to
help produce the show. He conceded that the charge of $3 per person for the show
was set by himself and it may have been a deterrent in bringing children to the
event. Relative to obtaining sponsorships from some of the larger corporations
and businesses in the community, the problem in so doing was the late start in
approaching these entities for financial assistance.
Mr. Link continued that they were about ready to finalize their non-profit status
and in talking about the Carrousel earlier, they (the Women's Division of the Chamber)
approached the Halloween Festival Committee with the possibility of working with them
to incorporate their previous activities along with the Festival to make it grow
into what it used to be in the past.
Ymyor Thom called for a vote on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Additional discussion followed regarding areas of darkness along the parade route
which were the subject of a complaint. Mr. Link commented that due to the redevelop-
77-1360
.City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
merit program, they were going to have to evaluate changing portions of the parade
route to different locations. The Committee would be approaching the Council again
in January to discuss next year's Festival.
Councilman Kott stated that a member of the Halloween Committee requested to be
heard in order to present some findings to the Council.
Roxie Alger, Parade Coordinator, presented copies of the Parade Festival Committee
By-laws which she contended were very ambiguous. She recommended that a copy of
the by-laws be evaluated by the City Attorney in order to eliminate some of the
minor problems the Committee experienced throughout the year. She considered this
to be necessary because the group represented the City of Anaheim throughout the
State, as well as other states. Ms. Alger then briefly outlined one of the problems
that occurred relative to non-conformance within the Committee to one of the stipu-
lations set forth in the by-laws. She maintained that a Festival representing Anaheim
should come under a commission such as other committees and commissions of the City
and not under the Chamber of Commerce.
The Mayor explained first that the City was not in a position to alter the Committee's
by-laws and they (the Committee) could not be forced into changing them because they
were not part of the City. He suggested instead, that the Steering Committee be
charged with the responsibility of updating or re-doing the by-laws. Secondly, the
Halloween Festival Committee was set up the previous year because of the lack of
interest on the part of an already existing committee to continue as in the past.
Further, the City would have to fund all of the activity if it were again under the
City and the people involved would have to come under the provisions of Proposition 9
disclosure laws which many were unwilling to do. The people directly connected with
it in the past through the Chamber did not feel it was proper for the Committee to
be under the City and maintained that they could operate more effectively in collab-
oration with, but not under, the City. Ail 9 or 10 people agreed unanimously they
did not wish to be a commission of the City or under the City Council and none had
ever come back to request reinstatement of the previous status.
Ms. Alger still maintained there should be some kind of connection with the City
so that it could be represented more favorably than in the current year.
105: HACMAC MEMBERSHIP: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Kott, reduction of membership on the HACMAC Committee from 15 to 11 members to be
accomplished through normal attrition was approved, as recommended in a letter
dated December 2, 1977, from the Secretary of HACMAC. MOTION CARRIED.
102: ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT APPOINTEE: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Judie de Perry was reappointed to the
District Board of Trustees for the term ending December 31, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 210: Request for certification of EIR No. 210
in connection with the proposed widening of Brookhurst Street from Guinida Lane
to Katella Avenue, was submitted. The Planning Commission recommended certification.
Mr. Robert Willing, 10651 Brookhurst, stated there were some problems inherent in
the apparently low-cost way in which the City was proposing to proceed relative to
the widening. He then briefed the Council on his three page letter dated December 13,
1977, (made a part of the record) which he submitted along with a petition containing
77-1361
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
76 signatures of residents not living on Brookhurst, opposing as part of the proposed
project the installation of a raised median strip since they would be seriously
affected by the withdrawal of traffic access, especially at Harle and Pacific Streets.
Mr. Willing's letter spoke in detail to the adverse impact the project would have
on the residents fronting Brookhurst relative to noise and pollution which, as a
residential area, would be blighted by the widening. He further explained that he
and the residents attended the meetings held with the Innovative Projects staff
wherein the three possible plans were discussed. A vote of the residents was
taken at the second meeting favoring Plan C (28-8) which vote was not adopted and
not presented in the EIR. His house was the farthest back from the street and
therefore, he would be the least impacted by the project but he was concerned about
his fellow residents. They voted to have the houses removed on one side of the
street only. From the standpoint of people now impacted, the houses on the east
side of the street (Anaheim's side) were generally much closer to the existing
roadway because they were approximately 18 to 20 feet from the curb. The houses
on the west side (County side) started at approximately 30 feet from the curb and
went farther back. From the standpoint of environmental impact, the houses on
the east side should be removed and the street constructed in that location. That
option was taken by Garden Grove for widening of Brookhurst to the south. Even
though it was a more expensive alternative, it was, in his opinion, an option
affording a more thorough and proper way of accomplishing the widening.
In answer to Councilman Seymour relative to the median strip, Assistant City Engineer
William Devitt explained that Mr. Robert Herr was in charge of the Innovative Projects
Section set up with a Federal Grant, and the proposed project was the result of a
one year study under the program. Thus, it would be appropriate to address questions
to Mr. Herr. He commented however, there were innumerable alternatives developed
which resolved themselves down to the three alternatives proposed.
Mr. Herr first explained that the project had not yet been to the design group, thus
no specific plans were available. Relative to the openings in the median, turn bays
and openings were planned at every street. Through the business area, which he
pointed to from a map, painted medians only were planned, and as well, there would be
left-turn pockets provided at Pacific, Harle and Cerritos. The proposal was the
same as presented in the EIR although the map depicted in the EIR dealt strictly
with right-of-way.
Mr. Willing referred to a discrepancy between a statement in the EIR in the expla-
nation Just given by Mr. Herr which indicated after widening, no left-turn pockets
would be provided.
A gentlemen from the audience interjected and requested that the left-turn lane
located by his business at 10231 Brookhurst not be eliminated.
Both the Mayor and Mr. Devitt explained the project was not yet in the design stages,
and Mr. Devitt continued that in order to maintain the posture of not being biased,
they employed outside consultants to prepare the EIR (draft environmental impact
report, Brookhurst Street widening, EIR No. 210, prepared by Westec Services, Inc.
--on file in the City Clerk's Office).
Councilman Seymour wanted to know what significant problems would occur if the EIR
was not approved until approval of a specific design was given.
77-1362
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 137 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Devitt stated the project was under consideration as a submittal to the County
for finding as an AHFP project for right-of-way acquisition only, and there was
a deadline on that submittal. If not approved it would not make this year's
submittal. '
Councilman Seymour wanted assurance that the residents, as well as the Council,
had an opportunity to evaluate the specific design of the project showing what
was going to happen and how, and he, therefore, requested that a public hearing
be held on the design aspect.
Mr. Nick Canales, 2173 West Cerritos, explained that his location on the northeast
corner was very impacted with a high noise level and a high incidence of accidents
resulting in cars ending up on his front lawn and back yard. The proposal was to
take 20 feet from his corner which would bring traffic within 10 feet of his bedroom
window. His house was up for sale and he was having difficulty selling it at present.
The proposed project with the addition of a 7-foot wall would make it even more
difficult not only to sell, but also to rent. Mr. Canales then stated, in answer
to the Mayor, that the houses should be taken either from one side of the street or
the other.
Mr. A1 Pritchard explained that he occupied one of the homes on the west side of
Brookhurst and his chief complaint with the EIR was that the Planning Commission
gave their tacit agreement to the EIR. The document pointed out the bad effects
on homeowners but it did not pursue any of the alternative plans that were offered.
Mr. Pritchard then discussed~the cost figures as presented on page 16, Project Cost,
page 31, Existing Conditions, page 32, Compensation, and page 62, Alternative C of
the EIR, and referred to what he considered to be inconsistencies. Before concluding,
he confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he owned a business at 10431 Brookhurst.
Councilman Seymour asked for a response to Mr. Pritchard's number analysis relative
to the proposed project cost.
Mr. Herr explained that a complete cost breakdown was available on the estimated
$1,300,000 cost of the project. The additional $2 million represented removal of
33 homes under Plan C covering the complete widening, including $250,000 for an
additional amount of street widening. Proposal B which was recommended, did not
cover the full 120-foot width, whereas in Plan C the street would be wider from curb
to curb. If the street were not widened to the ultimate, a savings of $200,000 to
$250,000 could be affected with the remaining land left as open space.
Further discussion followed, wherein Mr. Devitt explained the reason why it was
decided best to acquire the homes on the west side or County side of Brookhurst,
considering the comparative values of those on both sides of the street. Intensive
discussion had taken place with the County relative to the matter and their staff
and executive committee stated they would not participate in the cost of removal
of those homes, but only in the cost of acquisition of land to widen the roadway.
Thus, the cost of removal of 26 homes on the west side would have to be borne solely
by the City of Anaheim just as the city of Garden Grove had done when Brookhurst was
widened to the south. Another aspect discussed at the Planning Commission, was the
fact that the west side of Brookhurst was gradually going professional and commercial
and not maintaining the residential integrity which was true on the City side of the
street.
77-1363
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour maintained however, without proper design of the roadway and
the median, there would be a lack of encouragement of conversion to business.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, certification of EIR
No. 210, in connection with the proposed widening of Brookhurst Street, was re-
jected. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour interjected that rejection of the
EIR was not going to solve anything. Councilman Seymour was adamant in wanting to
see the street widened because he believed it to be absolutely necessary to do so.
However, he considered the alternatives provided not to be viable ones. Councilman
Seymour inquired as to the alternative of acquiring property for the widening on the
west side of the street only along with design improvements that would possibly en-
hance the situation with regard to the County.
Mr. Devitt explained the proposal would have to be submitted as a project to the
County and meet design standards for an arterial highway. Widening only on the
City side of the street would be inadequate and the project would probably not be
approved by the AHFP Committee if done on a piecemeal basis.
Mr. Herr clarified that the project was studied for one year and every alternative
possible was taken up with staff. As well, the plan was presented to the people
through a number of meetings. No one could come up with a better alternative;
either all of the homes on one side had to be taken or land acquired from each
side of the road, resulting in 6 adequate width travel lanes, 3 in each direction,
with a median, or go to the ultimate, resulting in excess land.
Upon further clarification by Mr. Herr and Mr. Devitt, it was ascertained that if
the EIR was approved, it would not have to be with the specific area of acquisition
chosen and it could be approved without selecting alternatives.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that EIR No. 210 be certified as being in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act relative to the proposed
widening of Brookhurst Street from Guinida Lane to Katella Avenue, as recommended
by the Planning Commission. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the previous
motion rejecting certification of EIR No. 210 was rescinded, and a public hearing
was set for December 27, 1977, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber to discuss the
proposed widening of Brookhurst Street. Councilman Thom voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Mike Gene Peavey for personal damages purportedly sustained
as a result of arrest by Anaheim Police on a charge of failing to carry identifica-
tion while driving a motor vehicle on or about August 16, 1977.
77-1364
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Scott Gans for personal injuries purportedly sustained
while at Anaheim City Jail on or about August 27, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Wendy Susan Gubman for personal injuries purportedly
sustained during an accident investigation by Anaheim Police on or about August 23,
1977.
d. Claim submitted by Marguerite Verse Guthrie for monetary damages purportedly
sustained as a result of negligence by Anaheim Police on or about November 17, 1977.
e. Claim submitted by Mrs. A. Barasa for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a power shortage on or about November 18, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 109: Before the PUC, Order Instituting Investigation No. 6, for the purpose
of establishing a list of the fiscal year 1978-79 of existing and proposed cross-
ings at grade of city streets, county roads or state highways most urgently in
need of separation, or projects effecting the elimination of grade crossings by
removal or relocation of streets of railroad tracks, or existing separations in
need of alteration or reconstruction as contemplated by Section 2452 of the Streets
and Highways Code.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of September 2 and 8, 1977.
c. 105: Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of October 26 and November 23, 1977.
d. 175: Monthly report for October 1977 - Customer Service Division.
e. 107: Monthly report for November 1977 - Building Division.'
f. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of October 27 and November 10, 1977.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmen Seymour and Kott left the Council Chamber. (5:42 P.M.)
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 77R-796
and 77R-797, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-796: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Hester Develop-
ment Company)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-797: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WARMINGTON
DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO REIMBURSE SAID CORPORATION FOR INSTALLING 473 FEET OF
WATER MAIN AS PART OF THE SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE AREA OF S. AVENIDA
MARGARITA AND AVENIDA FELIPE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT.
77-1365
.City .Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Roth and Thom
None
Seymour and Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-796 and 77R-797 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held November 21, 1977, pertaining to the following
applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-26 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1771: Submitted
by Anaheim Memorial Hospital, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CO to expand
an existing hospital on property located at 1133 and 1139 Hermosa Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC77-253 and PC77-254,
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-26 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1771, and
granted negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-30: Submitted by the City of Anaheim, for a change
in zone from RM-1200 to CO on property located on the southeast corner of Romneya
Drive and Swan Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-255, granted Reclass-
ification No. 77-78-30, and granted negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1766: Submitted by General American Life Insurance
Company, to permit a private club on ML zoned property located at 1515-H South
Sunkist Street.
The City Planning Commission granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1766 for one year,
and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1767: Submitted by Fred and Doreen Carfagnini, to
permit a pre-school on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2207 East Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-257, denied Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1767, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1769: Submitted by Bonnie W. Weber, to permit
on-sale beer and wine in an existing delicatessen on CL zoned property located
at 1287 "D" East Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-255, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1769 for one year, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
77-1366
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December~13, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1770: Submitted by Leon, Molly and William Lyon,
to permit a drive-thru restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2429 West Ball
Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-259, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1770, and granted negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1772: Submitted by Alvin D. and Esther M. Penhall,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed semi-enclosed restaurant with code
waiver of required tree screening on CL zoned property located on the east side of
Euclid Street, north of Orange Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-260, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1772, in part, and granted negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1773: Submitted by Foremost-Dairies, Inc., to per-
mit a truck storage yard on ML zoned property located at 600 East Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-261, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1773, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1774: Submitted by Kluthe Family Trust, to permit
on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at
821 South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-262, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1774, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1777: Submitted by A. L. and Margaret E. Rist, to
permit a travel trailer park on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the north
side of Katella Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard.
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-263, denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1777, and granted negative declaration status.
11. VARIANCE NO. 2875 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by Donald Hess, for
an extension of time for an automotive repair shop on property located at 1075 North
Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of 6 months to Variance No. 1875.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
VARIANCE NO. 2948 - RECONSIDERATION OF CIRCULATION PLAN: Robert D. Haugaard,
architect, requesting approval of vehicular circulation and parking plans for a
proposed commercial building on CL(SC) zoned property located on the northeast
corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. Said plans were approved
by the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned staff relative to a statement in the staff report
indicating implied access to Imperial Highway.
77-1367
Citz. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
After a brief discussion, Miss Santalahti confirmed that the Planning Commission
repeatedly stated they did not want access onto Imperial and requested the developer
to restate there would be no such access.
Thereupon, Councilman Roth moved to approve the vehicular circulation and parking
plans for Variance No. 2948 with the stipulation that there be no access onto
Imperial Highway. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilmen Kott and
Seymour were temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7587 - WAIVER OF STREET LIGHTS AND SIDEWALKS: Request
by Don Williamson for waiver of street lights and sidewalks in Tract No. 7587,
34 RS-HS-22,000 zoned lots on the south side of Hidden Canyon Road and Serrano
Avenue, was submitted, together with a recommendation by the Planning Commission
that said request be denied.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, waiver of street
lights and sidewalks in Tract No. 7587 was denied. Councilmen Seymour and Kott
were temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (5:45 P.M.)
170: TRACT NO. 9792 - FINAL MAP: Developer, John D. Lusk and Son of Irvine; Tract
located on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Villa Real Drive, containing
29 RS-HS-10,000 proposed zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
9792, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 6, 1977.
Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TRACT NO. 9821 - FINAL MAP: Developer, Robert P. Warmington Company of Irvine;
tract located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Imperial Highway, con-
taining 21 RS-HS-10,O00 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
9821, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 6, 1977.
Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3796: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3796 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3796: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PARKING. (no parking, both sides of Kellogg from north city limits to 0rangethorpe)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
None
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3796 duly passed and adopted.
77-1368
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott entered the Council Chamber. (5:47 P.M.)
ORDINANCE NO. 3797: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3797 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3797: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-41, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3797 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3798: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3798 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3798: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-8, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3798 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3799 THROUGH 3802: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3799
through 3802, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3799: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(84) CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 3800: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-48, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3801: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-58, ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3802: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-21, RM-1200)
173: OCTD OPERATING ASSISTANCE GRANT - DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, staff was directed to request OCTD
to include in their upcoming public hearings on the Operating Assistance Grant,
Dial-A-Ride service for the City of Anaheim. MOTION CARRIED.
132: RE-EVALUATION OF PAPER RECYCLING PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood explained
that the price of newsprint had escalated to $35 a ton, and Downey had instituted a
successful recycling program. She thereupon moved to have staff again re-evaluate
a paper recycling program for the City. The motion died for lack of a second.
77-1369
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed to 7:00 p.m., to the Multipurpose
room of the Central Library to discuss the Neighborhood Preservation Program within
the Community Development Block Grant Area and for a public hearing on the Community
Development Block Grant Fourth Year Application. (5:55 P.M..)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Kott called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Thom. (7:00 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom (entered
at 7:46 and left the meeting at 8:22 P.M.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST: Katherine Kocher
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION COORDINATOR: Gustavo Duran
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
STREETS & SANITATION SUPERVISOR: William Lewis
POLICE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Sergeant George Schrader
174: REPORT: Submitted was a report from the Community Development Department
regarding a neighborhood preservation program within the Community Development
Block Grant Program Area, including the area generally bounded by Lincoln Avenue,
East, Sycamore and Vine Streets, requested by the Council on November 8, 1977.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the Council
on his detailed report dated December 7, 1977, (CDD-HNPO-77-655--on file in the
City Clerk's Office). He explained that the recommendations contained therein
would be expanded upon by Mr. Gus Duran, Neighborhood Preservation Coordinator.
The recommendations however would not lead to quick specific action especially
relative to Housing Code enforcement which had far reaching implications and
such enforcement had to be developed as a cooperative enterprise between property
owners and the City.
Mr. Gus Duran then discussed in more detail, recommendations 1 through 7 as outlined
in the subject report.
Recommendation No. 1 - Systematic Housin~ Code Enforcement -- Mr. Duran explained
that door-to-door inspection by the City Inspector involved some legal issues that
the City Attorney could speak to. Another recommendation was the use of a tax deduc-
tion cancellation form wherein, through the State's Taxation Code, an owner of rental
property could be prevented from claiming State deductions as long as the property
remained substandard, although it was incumbent upon the City to prove the existence
of substandard units. The Housing Code Enforcement Officer had already gone door-
to-door in the subject area, but residents would not allow him to come into their
units.
Councilman Seymour questioned City Attorney Hopkins relative to the Systematic
Enforcement Program and the difficulty involved in gaining access and wanted his
opinion on the blanket warrant suggested that would permit such inspection.
77-1370
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that such a procedure provided for an inspection
warrant justified by an affidavit and submitted to a judge of a Municipal or
Superior Court. If the judge concurred that the inspection was necessary, it
could be done, but justification for so doing was required by an affidavit stating
that the action had to be taken. This could be done in connection with a Health
or a Fire Code or other zoning codes.
Mr. Duran stated that the approach as explained by Mr. Hopkins could be instituted
if the Council wished to pursue the Systematic Enforcement of the Housing Code.
Councilman Roth stated that the right to privacy was an important issue and prior
to his support giving blanket permission for anyone to enter another's home or
apartment, no doubt should exist that it was necessary with respect to the health
and safety of the people involved.
Mr. Hopkins clarified that the inspection warrant procedure would be on an individual
basis for each particular resident and not a blanket approval.
Mr. Duran then explained for Mayor Pro Tem Kott, that under the rental certificate
program, all rental properties in Anaheim would have to conform to the City's Housing,
Code and an inspection would occur every two years. That was an avenue they were
recommending over the long-term period. Their recommendations regarding Housing
Code enforcement were made as a result of complaints from residents about the area,
and it was determined the units involved should be inspected. The Rental Certificate
Program was an alternative for the Council to consider but the next stage with
regard to the City's existing Housing Code Enforcement was the door-to-door approach.
Mr. Duran then explained for Councilman Seymour that citizens in the area registered
complaints after which the City Building Department, Housing Code Enforcement Officer,
visited the particular unit to make an inspection. However, the resident had to allow
entry and if he did not do so, the officer had no legal right to enter. Thus far,
residents had not allowed him to enter the units.
Councilman Seymour agreed with Councilman Roth that it was a very drastic step to
take and every alternative should be explored prior to door-to-door inspection.
If neighborhood preservation was going to be successful, it was necessary to have
support of the neighborhood. He believed that kind of support existed in the
subject area. However, if once the neighborhood was informed they had the oppor-
tunity to file a complaint and they chose not to do so, then government should not
enter into the picture. He felt it was incumbent upon the residents to file a com-
plaint and if the inspector was subsequently unsuccessful, it was up to the City
Council to determine if they wanted to take the next step. The neighborhood had
to make the first move and thereafter the Council should support those efforts.
Mr. Priest interjected that government was not designed to deal with a small area
because the tools with which they had to work were very broad.
Councilman Seymour stated the Rental Certificate Program had to be applied on a
city-wide basis legally and thus, he could not support that because private property
owners who maintained their property should not be harrassed but instead congratulated.
77-1371
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Recommendation No. 2 - Trash Bin Enclosures: Mr. Duran stated as a short-term
recommendation, that the City Council authorize the City Sanitation Department
to issue notices of violation to the property owners who allow trash containers
to continually overflow. Presently the City could not require rental property
owners to install trash bin enclosures because in the 1950's when the subject
apartments were constructed, there was no requirement for such enclosures. If
property owners wanted to rehabilitate, they would have to do something about
the condition of their property because there was no physical space available
for location of the bins.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked on the problem where trash bins were allowed to
overflow and inquired as to whether or not there was a way to require additional
pickups.
Mr. Duran explained it would be required only if a property owner was given a
notice of violation.
Mr. Bill Lewis, Streets and Sanitation Supervisor, elaborated on how trash bin
enclosures led to a cleaner area, as requested by Councilman Seymour, the main
thrust being that trash bin enclosures provide a method of assemblage of order if
used properly, trash containers would be replaced in the enclosure after emptying,
and as well, the bin contained the trash in one area. If over-spillage occurred,
this would also be contained therein. The bins provided a way to keep the premises
in better sanitary condition. However, trash enclosures required almost twice as
much space as the container itself and there was no physical space in the subject
area where enclosures could be built. Approaching the problem on an individual
basis, some enclosures could be built on certain premises, but generally location
problems would be involved resulting in high construction and service costs. Thus,
trash bin enclosures did not appear to be a viable solution to the problem.
Councilman Roth suggested citing of those property owners who did not want to spend
the money to have an extra pickup made when trash bins became full and overflowed.
Mr. Lewis explained that a citation program was possible and they used that method
as a last resort. It was very difficult to keep the problem clear on an ongoing
basis because it was an ongoing problem. An enforcement program had some immediate
impact but it was relatively unsuccessful over a long-term without continual follow-
up.
Relative to enforcement concerning the types of trash being dumped into the bins
uncovered, causing odor and related unsanitary conditions, Mr. Lewis stated that
too was a matter of enforcement and tenants' cooperation was a necessary adjunct
of the program enabling explanation of the law and gaining enforcement in the area.
The difficulty was in citing someone who would take the responsibility in a multiple-
family area and seeing to it that the people who use the trash facilities use them
properly. The solution they attempted on a spot basis was a more active enforcement
program after first trying to solicit cooperation from someone responsible on each
of the premises. Staff-wise, it was difficult to do so, and Mr. Lewis did not antici-
pate hiring more personnel to handle the problem. However, that would depend on
various circumstances and if it was felt that more enforcement was necessary or more
contact with the public was needed on an active basis, then he would consider doing so.
At present, he had one inspector for 70,000 accounts. Dealing with properties on an
individual basis posed a problem, whereas under group ownership, there were other
ways to go.
77-1372
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour contended cleanliness was probably the most basic quality
needed in a neighborhood preservation program and there had to be another alter-
native other than assigning sanitation personnel to be out in the area continually.
Recommendation No. 3 - Housing Rehabilitation Program: Mr. Duran stated that property
owners in the subject area should be encouraged to utilize rehabilitation financing
programs now available. Every homeowner had been notified and it was their option
to utilize the existing programs. Property owners could not be forced to rehabilitate
their properties.
Recommendation No. 4 - Installation of Street Lights: Funds for the project could
be derived from the Redevelopment Program provided the Redevelopment Agency authorized
the expenditure. Construction of the necessary street lighting in the area could
begin four months after budget authorization.
Mr. Priest explained that while the project could be undertaken quickly, it did not
lie within the area where the petitioners resided, but northerly of that area. How-
ever, it was part of the Redevelopment Program.
Recommendation No. 5 - Installation of Planted Median on Cypress Street: Mr. Duran
briefed the Council on the recommendation concluding that Public Works indicated
cost of construction of landscaped traffic islands was esti~ted at $42,000. Assis-
tant City Engineer William Devitt elaborated on the history of the median issue.
Councilman Thom entered the Council Chamber. (7:46 P.M.)
At the request of Councilman Roth, Mr. Devitt explained at the time the landscaped
median islands were originally installed, there was considerable controversy be-
tween the people building apartments to the north of Cypress and the residents
to the south. The medians were minimal in terms of landscaping and only four feet
in width. They were basically in the middle of "T" intersections and were considered
to be a traffic hazard. Prior to their removal in 1972, there were many complaints
in terms of such traffic hazards and the recommendation of the Traffic Engineer at
the time was to remove the islands which recommendation was concurred with by the
majority of the people in the area. They would again be traffic hazards if reinstalled
in the same manner as initially constructed. However, the Traffic Engineer had again
reviewed the problem with the people in the neighborhood and some consideration had
been given as to how the median could be reinstalled in a more satisfactory manner.
Mr. Devitt explained further for Councilman Kott that originally there was much
controversy between the older citizens in the older areas and the new apartment
complexes that were being constructed and the terminology used at the time was
the median was basically a "spite" island. It was more of a social problem than
one of traffic.
Comments from the audience indicated that the islands were constructed to prevent
the streets from looking down the alleys and vice versa, and none of the residents
signed a petition to have them removed. A large show of hands from those present
indicated they favOred reinstallation of the median. Additional comments from the
audience indicated concurrence with the reinstallation of the median, but constructed
narrow enough and in the right location so as not to restrict ingress and egress.
It was also stated that the petition passed to have the median removed was signed by
renters. A few years prior, the City had passed a regulation stating that before
any changes could be made, approval of property owners had first to be acquired
77-1373
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M~
because their properties would be assessed accordingly. Therefore, if property
owners had been taken into consideration at the time, the islands would never have
been removed. A matter of aesthetic value was also involved, along with the fact
that there were only three accidents during the time the islands were in place,
whereas now many accidents occurred which could be borne out by the Traffic Engineer's
report.
Another resident presented an opposing view indicating that he was the one that
carried the petition to have the medians removed because of the traffic hazards
involved. The area was now more accessible and there were less accidents. Having
lived in the area for 18 years, he was opposed to the reinstallation of the median.
Recommendation No. 6 - Extra Police Patrollin~ of the Area: Mr. Duran explained
that the area was presently receiving more police patrol than that of other areas
of the City and CDBG funds provided for the extra police officer for the area.
Sergeant Schrader, Police Community Services Division, explained it was his
responsibility to see that the Special Crime Prevention Program was carried out
in the redevelopment area through Officer Gray who was under his supervision. ~
His entire 8-hour shift was spent in that area.
Relative to the most numerous violations and biggest complaints, Sergeant Schrader
explained that burglaries were most prevalent because the houses were older and
thus not adequately secured. Many residents did not have the funds to upgrade
those conditions. One of the difficulties encountered was getting people to
accept the police program and allowing them to visit their homes in order to demon-
strate how they could protect themselves. He emphasized there was more coverage
and more patrol in that part of the City, which included the Pearson Park area,
than any other section of the City.
Sergeant Schrader then explained the procedure used when burglaries were reported
in the redevelopment area, all of which were handled personally by Officer Gray.
A resident from the audience indicated that he had yet to see a police officer
come to his door and he, as well as others in his age group, would be more than
happy to have an officer visit.
Recommendation No. 7 - Postin~ of Streets for Street Sweeping: Mr. Duran explained
that they were not yet ready to take any particular action on the posting of streets
for street sweeping in view of the pilot programs still in progress at three loca-
tions in the City.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Lewis stated that he did not have cost figures
relative to posting of signs city-wide, one of the reasons being they were developing
a plan to be presented to the City Council for consideration which would change the
sign requirement. They would have to get clearance through the City Attorney's
Office as to the legality of the proposal, but were confident they could minimize
the number of signs to prevent extensive sign blight in the City. The signs in the
pilot areas cost approximately $32 each and the spacing would require 500 to 600
signs per street which would obviously become a very expensive project.
In summary, Mr. Priest emphasized that two fundamental issues basically affected the
quality of life in the area bounded by Sycamore Street, East Street, Lincoln Avenue
and the AT&SF railroad tracks:
77-1374
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
1. The area has a need for the improvement of certain basic capital projects and
public services.
2. There exists a lack of proper on-site management of the apartment complexes in
the area.
Mr. Priest stated that tonight there was already a group of people talking and if
this group began to work through the Community Development Department or City
departments over the long-term, it would assist in combating the basic lack of
communication problem. The report and recommendations was only a beginning and it
included more that could be done than they could accomplish by themselves. If the
recommendations were not the wish of the neighborhood, then it would be futile to
continue. He viewed the report as a basis for the beginning of a program working
with a neighborhood association, formal or informal, to accomplish that vital
communication.
The following additional comments were voiced by interested residents from the
audience:
1. Relative to trash collection, there was reason to believe there were more
people living in the apartment complexes than should be, thus causing the great
amount of trash generated. The owner of the property was the one finally respon-
sible and if the owner was cited three weeks in a row at a cost of $25 for each
citation, this would force trash pick-up twice a week.
2. If on-street parking was enforced, half of the apartment dwellers would have to
leave because there were more cars than rooms in the apartments.
3. If the police enforced stop signs, there would be no need for a median. However,
a median could enhance the ne±ghborhood's appearance provided it was not too wide.
4. Several years prior, there were two police patrols a night up and down the alley.
Such patrols were no longer in evidence in the 100 block of North Vine.
5. In the 500 block of North Bush, there were mostly absentee landlords and they
did not care if 10 or 12 adults were living in one-bedroom apartments. As well,
they did not care about the unsanitary trash conditions.
6. There were many hit-and-run accidents due to the traffic situation in the area.
7. Relative to setting up a neighborhood association, the people in the surrounding
area were those interested in such an association and not those in the subject area.
They could not go into the area and tell them what to do, but it should be incumbent
upon the City to do so.
Mr. Richard Rosewitz stated that a year ago at CDBG hearings, he did recommend the
need for Housing Code enforcement but now wanted to reverse his position. A massive
relocation of people out of the area would be involved and funds could be spent in
a better way, such ~as for public works projects and especially the improvement of
alley ways in Target Area 4. The present method of Code enforcement on a complaint
basis was adequate at this time.
77-1375
City H.a.ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour recalled that Mr. Rosewitz, in discussing the matter with him
a year prior, demanded that Housing Code enforcement take place and was surprised
to learn he did not now consider it to be a good idea. He conceded that although
there was a need for public improvements, he (Rosewitz) would be mistaken in think-
ing that the accomplishment of such improvements would turn the neighborhood around.
Councilman Thom left the Council Chamber. (8:22 P.M.)
In concluding, Mr. Rosewitz commented that occasionally trash was not picked up at
all and the area was not being patrolled to any extent. It was ascertained, however,
that since Mr. Rosewitz lived in the 900 block of Claudina Street, he was talking
about an entirely different neighborhood than that under discussion.
Councilman Seymour asked to hear from any other residents from the Neighborhood
Preservation Area who wished to offer additional input before the Council took
action.
Mr. Bill Snyder explained that he owned an apartment building on Bush Street and
he concurred that the main problem existing in the area was the overcrowding of
some of the other apartments on Bush. He was told that in one of the buildings,
no unit contained less than two families. As well, trash and burglary problems
were all related to overcrowding of the area.
Mr. John Newhan explained that he owned apartments on Vine Street and in trying
to travel down Bush Street, cars were double and triple parked and the occupants,
when approached, would not move. Thus, policing of the area would assist greatly.
Also, relative to trash pick-up or some kind of code that would require people to
keep trash bins cleared would be hard to enforce because people rummaged through
trash bins daily looking for aluminum cans and bottles. The owners would have to
lock the trash bins and have keys for their tenants. On a number of occasions,
people other than his tenants dumped trash into his bins. Although he was an
absentee owner, he worked within two miles of the area and checked his property
twice a week. He viewed his building as an investment and was interested in
providing his tenants with adequate living quarters and beauty in the surroundings.
Mr. Newhan concluded that overcrowding had to be prevented and something had to be
done. He also confirmed for Councilman Seymour that as a property owner, he would
be willing to spend time as part of a neighborhood association in order to improve
property values, and he would even support a dues structure to enable it to function.
Thereupon, Councilman Seymour asked for a show of hands from those in the audience
living or owning property in the area generally bounded by Wilhelmina on the north,
East on the east, Vine on the west and Lincoln on the south, who would be willing
to participate with some time and energy in a neighborhood association. Approxi-
mately 20 people indicated their willingness to participate in such an association.
Councilman Seymour then suggested that the Community SerVices Board, if interested,
not only play the role of following-up with a neighborhood association when created
to insure that their recommendations were initiated, but also carry the whole concept
relative to neighborhood preservation and revitalization, and take the responsibility
of having the association report to the Board the specific problems, passing to the
Council those problems deemed necessary.
77-1376
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mildred Campbell, Chairman of the Community Services Board, indicated that although
a quorum of the Board was not present, she could give a yes answer to the proposal.
Councilman Roth suggested that names and addresses of those interested in becoming
involved be collected; Mr. Priest pointed out that names and addresses were available
on the petition submitted.
Mrs. Patricia Bayley, 801 North Loara, suggested that some of the people in the
apartments were reluctant to make a statement to the police or other authorities
relative to violations of the Housing Code because they feared retaliation. She
did not know what kind of protection could be offered to those individuals who
wanted to come forward and testify or appear in court.
City Attorney Hopkins first clarified that if more than the allowable number of
people were living in a unit, more than five persons not related by blood or
marriage or two families of an excessive number of persons not related, his office
had to know the facts and have evidence. Then a citation or complaint could be
filed in Municipal Court, .and the individual person responsible for that location
brought into court. The City could provide the enforcement but it was necessary
to have the residents' cooperation. Without the necessary information, it would not
be possible to provide the requested assistance. An individual or an association
would have to come forth to testify in court that to their knowledge an excessive
number of people not related were living in one unit. It would be possible for someone
to telephone his office or give a report to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and subse-
quently a complaint could be issued. If the case was brought to court, hopefully the
judge would be able to determine it from the testimony of the Police Officer or
Zoning Enforcement Officer. However, such testimony would be better given from the
people themselves and they would try to work it out so that individuals would not be
subject to any harrassment.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve the following recommendations:
1. Staff and Community Services Board to work with those from the subject neighbor-
hood who would become the neighborhood association and assist them in getting organized.
The neighborhood association subsequently would be responsible to file a complaint
relative to violations of the Housing Code, and the City would insure enforcement of
the complaint.
2. Repeatedly cite offending property owners when trash bins overflowed and no
provisions made f~r extra pickups.
3. Institute housing rehabilitation as recommended by the Community Development
Department (CDD) in the December 7, 1977 report.
4. Institute a street lighting program as recommended by the CDD in report dated
December 7, 1977 report.
5. Postpone action on the median. Support proposal at a later date if the recommended
program proceeds satisfactorily.
6. Support the recommendation made by the CDD relative to Police patrolling.
7. Institute a street sweeping program--post streets no later than March 1, 1978.
77-1377
..City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Councilman Thom was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - FOURTH-YEAR
APPLICATION: To obtain the views and preferences of residents and to establish a
proposed budget for fourth-year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) activities.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the Council
on his report dated December 7, 1977, (on file in the City Clerk's Office) outlining
the fourth-year Community Development Block Grant Program, recommending that the
Council adopt one of the plans or a variation thereof submitted as a part of the
report (Exhibit A).
Kay Kocher, Community Development Specialist, then presented maps which depicted
the entire area covered by the program and specifically outlining the present area
under consideration for the fourth-year application.
Mr. Priest then explained that the redevelopment area covered 200 acres and each
year a series of hearings required by law-was conducted, the basic purpose of which
was to insure that citizens living in the target area who wished to offer input
relative to the expenditure of grant funds were afforded the opportunity to do so.
During the past several months, six neighborhood meetings were held and even though
there was substantial publicity, attendance was less than hoped for. However, a
substantial number of comments were received and attached to the subject report.
The Community Services Board also held two public meetings, such meetings being one
of the Board's primary functions each year relative to the CDBG wherein some 72 people
attended. The input received, as well as the resultant recommendation, was contained
in report dated December 5, 1977, from the Community Service Board (on file in the
City Clerk's Office) indicated as Exhibit "B" of the December 7, 1977 report.
Mr. Priest then described the four overall objective areas--Housing Programs, Public
Improvements, Neighborhood Enhancement, and Administration and Contingency (see
EXhibit "A"). He pointed to the minor differences between the Community Services
Board and staff recommendations regarding budget allocation for public improvements
in Area No. 4, staff recommendations being $881,000 as compared to $878,000 under CSB,
$351,000 compared to $330,000 under Neighborhood Enhancement, and $1,980,000 compared
to $1,957,000 under Administration and Contingency. Both staff and the Community
Services Board were both in accord relative to the housing program budget allocation
recommended of $508,000. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the budget and
to make any modifications deemed appropriate.
Mr. Priest also explained that he and the Community Development staff met with HUD
in Los Angeles the prior week to discuss the new and more rigorous set of regula-
tions relative to CDBG, effective April 1, 1978. He, thus, wanted to have the
necessary application submitted before April 1, in order to take advantage of
more flexible rules now in existence.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the $30,000 figure, for citizen parti-
cipation under the Neighborhood Enhancement Program. Although she knew it was re-
quired and desirable, if that was the amount spent on the last series of meetings it
meant that approximately $2,000 was expended to get one person to a meeting. If so,
she maintained the money might be better used by putting it into a neighborhood center.
Mr. Priest explained that the $30,000 also covered some staff time in the Community
Services Center throughout the year, as well as providing for the set of hearings and
monitoring of the program. Therefore, it covered the annual program, otherwise he
77-1378
C_ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
would concur with Councilwoman Kaywood. He also added that citizen participation
was one of the points very much in contention and such participation was going to
be even more tightly structured in the future. They were funded for such partici-
pation, however, and even now their program was in much greater depth than that of
other cities.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted and was concerned over the fact that the Community
Services Board did not recommend any expenditure for crime prevention under the
Neighborhood Enhancement section, whereas staff recommended $40,000.
Mr. Priest explained that the Community Services Board was not acting irresponsibly
and they did recognize a need for the service. They took what they considered a
judicious step, considering that perhaps other law enforcement funding would be
available and should be investigated. However, that required turn-around time and
the only alternative other than Block Grant Funds would be to go back to City funds.
Mayor Pro Tem Kott asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the Community Develop-
ment Block Grant Fourth-Year Program.
A member of the Community Services Board from the audience explained that the $40,000
was buying one Police Officer to do a job that was not covering the whole area. Fund-
ing was available from other sources such as LEAA and the Justice Department, which
had to be explored. Since there was not enough money to do other things that could
only come from CDBG Funds, they felt it was justifiable to seek other funding relative
to crime prevention, and thus did not recommend the expenditure from the CDBG Funds.
Jan Post stated she managed a plant which she believed to be in the subject area and
wanted to know how she could get more details relative to the area in order to pro-
tect her plant, particularly the streets and the parking lot.
Mr. Priest thereupon gave her the requested information.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Priest stated since this was the budgetary hearing, he wanted to come out of
it with budget approval in order to prepare the application for the second hearing.
Thereupon, Councilman Seymour moved to approve the amended Community Services Board
Budget Allocation for the Community Development Block Grant Fourth-Year Application
with amendments as outlined and recommended by staff. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Thom was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion. Councilman Thom was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (9:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Kott called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Thom. (9:45 P.M.)
77-1379
City...Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
153: RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-798 THROUGH 77R-809: Councilman Seymour offered Resolu-
tion Nos. 77R-798 through 77R-809, both inclusive, for adoption as presented by the
City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-798: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM
POLICE ASSOCIATION AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-672. (effective October 14, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-799: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR THE NEW JOB CLASSES OF POLICE OFFICER-
HELICOPTER PILOT-HAZARD AND POLICE SERGEANT-HELICOPTER PILOT-HAZARD. (effective
October 14, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-800: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 4, APPROPRIATE SALARY STEP AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.
76R-178 AND RESOLUTION NO. 71R-105 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910. (effective
December 9, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-179,
76R-431, 77R-4, 77R-690, 77R-742 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910. (effective
October 14, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-802: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 7, APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 76R-180, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910. (effective December 9, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-803: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 9, PROBATION AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-54, 73R-538,
73R-498 AND 69R-608 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910. (effective December 9, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-804: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 15, HOLIDAYS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-566, 73R-539,
73R-500 AND 70R-600 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910. (effective December 9, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-805: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 16, VACATION AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-181, AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910. (effective December 9, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-806: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 21, JURY DUTY AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 68R-433 AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910. (effective December 9, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-807: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 22, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910.
(effective December 9, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-$08: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR STAFF
AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT AND ALLOCATING THE JOB CLASS OF POLICE LIEUTENANT TO A
NEW RATE OF COMPENSATION. (effective October 14, 1977)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-809: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPERSEDING PORTIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 76R-736 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ADJUSTING
RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR PROGRAM MANAGERS. (effective October 14, 1977)
77-1380
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 13~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
Mayor Pro Tem Kott declared Resolution Nos. 77R-798 through 77R-809, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
153: MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, the follow-
ing mileage reimbursement program was established, as presented by the City Manager:
The City Mileage Reimbursement rate will be adjusted quarterly upward or downward
in accordance with change in the average base price of gasoline (average base
price = average of the price per gallon of Regular, Premium and Unleaded gasoline
for the Long Beach/Los Angeles area as computed by the U. S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics) as follows:
(Base Month
May 1976)
AVERAGE BASE PRICE
59.7C/gallon
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE
15¢ up to 100 miles
12¢ over 100 miles
69.7C/gallon
16¢ up to 100 miles
13¢ over 100 miles
79.7C/gallon
17¢ up to 100 miles
14¢ over 100 miles
89.7C/gallon
18¢ up to 100 miles
15¢ over 100 miles
99.7C/gallon
19¢ up to 100 miles
16¢ over 100 miles
The first complete quarter shall be from July through September 1977. Any increase
or decrease for a quarter shall be computed in the month following each respective
quarter and shall be effective the first day of the second month following the end
of each respective quarter.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Thom was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. Councilman Thom was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:50 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK