Loading...
1975/11/0475-964 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1975, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTanT: John Harding CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt POLICE CHIEF: Harold Bastrup PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Phil Schwartze Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Pastor Leroy Miller of the Faith Lutheran Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation on the achievements of Orange County Teen Challenge, unanimously approved by the Anaheim City Council was presented to Mr. Ron Bone, Orange County Teen Challenge Director. Mr. Bone addressed the meeting and thanked the Anaheim City Council for the recognition. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held October 7, 1975 were approved with the following correction, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom. Addition to Page 75-901, Minutes of October 7, 1975 - "Councilwoman Kaywood felt that future sellers realizing high profits from sale of land after the storm drain is constructed should pay the additional $2,000 per acre to the City. Mayor Thom felt this could not be legislated and it would be too hard and too expensive to determine the price for each piece of land, before and after installation." MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES ~qD RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIEO. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEManDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $422,990.84, in accordance with the 1975-76 Budget, were approved. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-569 - ESTABLISIIING PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS - VETERAi~ SPLIT JOB PROGRAM: On recommendation of the Personnel Director, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-569 for adoption establishing four special job classes for part-time workers to implement the Veteran Split Job Program. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-1 ESTABLISHING NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (Grant Funded Veteran Workers I, II, III and IV) Roll Call Vote: 75-965 C.ity ttall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1975, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCIL ME~IBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL ME~.~ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-569 duly passed and adopted. INTERGOVErnMENTAL COORDINATING COUNCIL DUES FOR 1975-76 FISCAL YEAR: Mr. John tiarding presented the request received from the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council that the City of Anaheim pay dues for the 1975-76 Fiscal Year in the amount of $4,296, based on the City's population. Mayor Thom recalled that there had been some discussion regarding the dissolution of this organization, but more recently there has been a surge of interest in making the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council a Mini-COG. tie noted that of the 26 cities in Orange County there are only one or two non- member s. blr. Iiarding reported that several Orange County cities have withheld dues this year. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that although originally the organization appeared to be a duplication of efforts, on closer review this is not the case. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the City Council authorize payment of $4,296 in dues to the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council for Fiscal Year 1975-76. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, Councilman Seymour stated that he would not object to the motion as offered if in the past the ICC had been effective, or if at this time it was sufficiently clear that the organization was going to be effective in the future, ttowever until this is demonstrated or until the Mini-COG plan becomes organized, he stated he would prefer to hold payment in abeyance. Mayor Thom stated that he had not intended to vote favorably on payment of these dues for much the same reasons, lie suggested that it might be more prudent to just delay rather than vote against payment of the dues. Following discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood amended the foregoing motion to hold payment of Anaheim's 1975-76 dues to the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council in abeyance for a period of 60 days to allow further consideration. Councilman Thom seconded the motion as amended. MOTIOM CARRIED. POLICE DEPAR~IENT - REQUEST FOR REPLACE~IENT HELICOPTER: Police Chief Bastrup read a prepared statement in support of his request for Council authorization of the expenditure of $71,485 for a replacement helicopter, $48,750 of which might be appropriated from the Police Operations Division Part-time Salaries and Wages Account No. 100-312-160. (Copies of Chief Bastrup's statement were presented to Council Hembers. Complete copy of statement on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Chief Bastrup's statement outlined the history of events leading to the necessity to replace one of the two helicopters and presented a sumaation of helicopter patrol accomplishments to date. tie cited the advantages provided by helicopter patrol in surveillance of City and school property with reduction in incidents of vandalism; aerial observation to detect crime and fire; traffic control; back up for officers on the ground; patrol of areas such as the eastern sector of Anaheim which are sparsely populated and have rugged terrain. lie concluded that as a Watch Commander assigned to patrol for a three-year period he was personnally aware of the advantages in all of these areas and consequently urges and requests Council approval for the replacement helicopter. b~yor Thom questioned the allocation to Account No. 100-312-160 noting that in his copy of the budget this bears the title "Special Events - Police". Chief Bastrup and his Staff Assistant Mary Schander explained that there was an error in the original printing of the budget which was subsequently corrected. This account number is properly titled "part-time - temporary employees" and contains $137,500; the sum of $40,000 allocated to cadets and $97,500 to reserve corps. 75-966 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975, 1:30 P.M. In further response to Mayor Thom, Chief Bastrup explained that the $97,500 allocated for reserve corps wages contains a surplus because of the pending decision on the Fair Labor Standards Act to be made by the Supreme Court during the October term. Payment to the reserve corps was anticipated to begin July 1, 1975 but has been delayed pending this decision. He noted that a decision in this matter is not anticipated until December or January. Therefore the funds allocated for these wages are unencumbered. In response to Mayor Thomas concern that management should have known these funds would not be expended prior to adoption of the 1975-76 Budget, Chief Bastrup pointed out that they were anticipating a decision from the Supreme Court in August, and were well into the budgetary preparations when the case was continued to October. Further discussion ensued regarding the hours of operation of the helicopter, and it was explained that the helicopters are budgeted for 70 hours per weak or 10 hours flight time daily, which currently occurs between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Upon ascertaining from Chief Bastrup that the helicopter is not extremely effective for patrol and prevention of crime at night in developed, single-family residential areas since most crimes in these neighborhoods occur during the daytime, Councilman Seymour voiced his concerns over the noise and invasion of privacy these vehicles inflict upon single- family residential neighborhoods in particular during the evening and night time hours. Councilman Seymour inquired whether any tests have been taken to determine the degree of effectiveness of the quiet kits installed. Sergeant Finley of the Anaheim Police Department who is in charge of helicopter maintenance reported on tests undertaken in conjunction with the Newport Beach Police Department on July 22, 1974, prior to purchase of the quiet kits. These tests concluded that the noise emitted from a helicopter flying at 500 feet range from 65 to a maximum of 67 db with the quiet kit and at the same height ranged from 71 to 73 maximum db without it, a differential of 5.5 decibel reduction; at 700 feet with the quiet kit the sound averaged from 63 db up to a maximum of 65 db and without the quiet kit from 68 to a maximum of 69 decibels again demonstrating a differential factor of 5 decibels. Councilman Seymour pointed out that the City of Anaheim has an ordinance which provides that maximum sound levels shall be 65 db and the helicopters, with the quiet kits are either above or barely at this sound level. Councilman Seymour stated that his point is since helicopters are of limited effectiveness during the evening hours in developed single-family residential neighborhoods, and because they do inflict upon these areas such a high level of noise, he could not understand why the helicopters would not fly over these areas when necessary at a height of 800 to 1,000 feet and then drop down right over their target area in order to avoid disturbing the majority of the residents in these otherwise quiet neighborhoods. Chief Bastrup stated that the Police Department has not had one complaintin the last ten-week period about helicopter operations. He described the program they have instituted which is intended to inform the public as to the reason the helicopter is overhead, assuming that if the residents know that the helicopter is involved in a search for a lost child, apprehension of burglars, etc., they are more willing to accept the brief period of inconvenience during which the helicopter is passing over or patrolling their area. Sergeant Finley advised that the reason the helicopters do not fly higher is that up until 10:00 p.m. most of the City of Anaheim is in either the Fullerton or Los Alamitos control zone and consequently had to sign a letter agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration stating that in order to avoid conflict with fixed wing aircraft, the helicopters would not fly above 800 feet except with special permission during certain hours. Once the control zones are closed at 10:00 p.m. the helicopters can fly at 850 or 900 feet. However, Sergeant Finley reported that the search lights with which the helicopters are equipped limit the field of vision of the pilot and observer and require that they fly lower in order to patrol at night. He noted that many times City parks and school district properties are not located on major streets but in residential areas and in order to adequately patrol these the 75-967 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1975, 1:30 P.M. helicopter must pass through residential neighborhoods and additionally must circle about the~e properties 300 feet on the periphery in order to observe the sides of the buildings. Councilman Seymour stated that he has no problem with the helicopter program and agrees with most of what Chief Bastrup has indicated relative to the beneficial things they can do in protecting public properties and curtailing roof top burglaries, but reiterated that he strongly objects to the invasion of privacy and noise impact these have particularly on single-family residential neighborhoods, lte felt there should be a better way to abate the noise. Further discussion initiated by Councilman Seymour centered about assignments of those Police Officers who would have been on helicopter patrol if the second helicopter was not lost in the crash. Chief Bastrup advised that the helicopter officers are placed immediately in the field if the helicopter cannot fly as a result of maintenance work, weather conditions or whatever; that they are assigned as an additional vehicle patrol unit or sometimes assigned to plain clothes in a high crime area. He explained however that these men would constitute one additional patrol unit only for those 10 hours per day and not for a 24-hour day. He remarked that even when two aircraft are available the Anaheim Police Department flies only one, unless there is a major emergency; the other being required because of the down tine required for maintenance. Sergeant Finley advised that even with one aircraft available they were able to average 9 hours of daily patrol during the month of October. Chief Bastrup noted that personal costs are the same with or without the second helicopter and that it is, in effect, just another patrol unit. In response to Councilman Seymour, Sergeant Finley described the hours of maintenance required and how this is routinely handled. At the conclusion of his description, Councilman Seymour summarized that a helicopter is tied up on a monthly basis 11 work shifts for routine maintenance, exclusive of unexpected repairs, with which statement Sergeant Finley concurred. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour stated that he could not at this time vote favorably on the purchase of an additional helicopter since, on the basis of the answers he had received relative to what happens if the City only has one helicopter, he concludes the City will not be losing that much; i.e., a maximum of 11 shifts or 5 days per month for routine maintenance. Secondly, he noted he is not convinced that a regional plan with the Orange County Sheriff's Department to provide on-call helicopter service would not better serve the City's needs. He advised that he would prefer rather than making a decision on this, that a 60- to 90day moratorium on the purchase be established, and during that period of time the Council appoint two members to meet with Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates and discuss the possibility of such a regional service plan whereby the City could receive the best of helicopter service without having to pay the price for the worst as well. Chief Bastrup stated that he had contacted the Sheriff's Department relative to such a program on three occasions and was informed they have no plan whatsoever to establish the helicopter service and are not looking into it. In response to Councilman Seymour's comments that there are incorporated into his prepared statement arguments against a regional plan but no arguments in favor of same, Chief Bastrup remarked that he has contacted many other police departments in this regard and there are not a great many pro arguments. He stated that a regional helicopter program would create a lot of problems and in the long run probably cost the City more. I{e pointed out that the helicopter would only be available on call whereas in their experience patrol is very important. Councilman Seymour pointed out that he is not just interested in cutting the costs of the helicopter program, but in transferring the costs saved through participation in a regional program into additional policemen on tile street. 75-968 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Sneegas pointed out that there are many advantages and cost savings provided by the helicopter patrol ~ich are not immediately identifiable. He stated that from his experience on the Police Department there is nothing which can compare with the observation capabilities ~ich helicopters provide. He remarked that he was certain that if a helicopter patrol had been available several years ago at least one-half million dollars in fire damages might have been avoided since the arsonist could have been apprehended almost immediately. He agreed that the Council should be concerned with the cost factor and the potential invasion of privacy but voiced his opinion that most people, if they know the reason for the helicopter's presence have no complaint. He stated that he views this expenditure as an investment which prolongs the life of the City's helicopter equipment, tte remarked that it will probably prove to be a saving in the long run since the price of the helicopter will undoubtedly increase next year. In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, a representative from Hughes Aircraft advised that they do anticipate a price increase of $8,000 effective November 15, 1975. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (2:33 P.M.) The ~yor recognized Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito Street, Anaheim, who referred to financial problems being experienced by other cities in the County today, which he felt were caused because their expenditures are completely out of relation to the tax base. Mr. Dexter referred to the Arthur Young & Company Management Practices Audit of the Anaheim Police Department, Page No. 4 of which indicates that in their opinion the Anaheim Police Department relies on specialization to an exceptional degree. Arthur Young & Company focused concern on over specialization in a medium-size police department since this might generate unnecessary inefficiencies and counter productive efforts. He further noted that Page No. 91 of the same report recommends that prior to replacement of either existing helicopters the City and Police Department representatives should explore the possibility of a regional law enforcement helicopter program in which Anaheim might participate, tie further cited the fact that the City of Anaheim is the only city in the metropolitan area of Northern Orange County which has it own helicopter patrol. This is indicative to him that it is not justifiable. Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber. (2:34 P.M.) Mr. Joe White, representing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce City-County Government Committee reported on some of the ~uestions concerning the Anaheim helicopter service which arose at a recent meJting of their group. These questions included: the cause of the tragic crash; the authorization for the flight to Idyllwild; whether or not the mountainous terrain was safe for this type aircraft; the written policy and procedures for use of the helicopters outside the City Limits; and the City's insurance coverage against liability from the helicopters. Mr. %~ite reported on a personal note, speaking for himself and others living in his immediate neighborhood, that they would appreciate Council's consideration of relocating the helicopter pad in the industrial area or some sector of the City away from residences as the noise levels in their area are greater than those experienced from a helicopter at 700 feet in the air. ~. James Barisic, Vice President, Anaheim Hills, spoke in favor of the helicopter program both as an Anaheim resident living in the hill and canyon area as well as a businessman. He cited a number of instances in which the helicopter proves invaluable. He noted that with the terrain in the hill and canyon area it is sometimes almost impossible to employ typical law enforcement procedures. He remarked that neither himself nor any of his neighbors in the canyon area object to the flights over their homes and yards by the helicopter as they feel the helicopter patrol protects them. He indicated that he has worked in cities which have shared helicopter services mostly because they were much smaller than Anaheim and had nowhere near its total budget to provide these services. He pointed out that Anaheim is a massive city spreading a great distance in both easterly and westerly directions and he did not know how the Police Department could adequately provide services without an air patrol. 75-969 City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ike Isaacson, 4354 East Holtwood, Anaheim, advised that he lives in the canyon area and favors the helicopter program. He also endorsed the program as a representative of Disneyland, noting that the helicopter has assisted them several times. He remarked that he did not think tile City could receive the same service as currently provided on a shared-time basis. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that a 90-day moratorium be established on the purchase of the second helicopter and that during this period at least two members of the City Council pursue immediately the possibility of providing helicopter service on a regional basis through the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, Councilman Thom noted his agreement with Councilman Seymour's position and added that he felt if the Council is not successful in negotiating a joint helicopter service plan with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, that the idea should be pursued with the Northern Orange County Cities of Fullerton, Orange, Buena Park, Yorba Linda, etc., as he feels very strongly the services can be accomplished in a less costly, more efficient manner. Councilman Sneegas stated that he might agree if he could see any possibility of the helicopter service being provided on a group basis. However, smaller cities have even discontinued using the Sheriff's Department for routine law enforcement and inaugurated their own police departments at increased costs because of unsatisfactory service as far as the citizens were concerned, tte felt that every argument against a regional helicopter service should be amplified, that the City cannot share a helicopter and expect to have the same service. He felt the 10 hours per day flight time put in by the air patrol is well spent. He concluded that the investment for the second helicopter is a large expense, but when it comes to law enforcement he feels the best is not too good. Council discussion ensued during which Council Members Thom and Seymour voiced the opinion that it is imperative that the Council at least investigate and attempt to give a trial period to a regional helicopter service as a means of cutting costs. Councilman Seymour pointed out that it might be foolhardy to purchase this aircraft when contemplating a regional program as another type of aircraft might be more appropriate for County use and the City Council would be in the embarrassing position of having a brand new helicopter for which they would not be able to recoup their investment, to which Councilwoman Kaywood noted that it would be equally embarrassing not to purchase the helicopter and be faced with the price increase on ordering it in the next few months. Councilwoman gaywood commented that she had received citizen input both for and against the helicopter program, receiving at least 108 in favor. She noted when the City's helicopters were out of service that she and other resi- dents were still subjected to helicopter noise from aircraft launched at Los Alamitos or Fullerton, which noise was being blamed on Anaheim. She felt it would be prudent to place the order for the replacement helicopter at this time in order to'avoid the price increase and to immediately proceed with the investigation of a regional helicopter service program through the County. She also remarked that she feels many of the questions introduced by Mr. Joe White should be answered. Roll Call Vote on the foregoing motion was requested by Mayor Thom and the motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES; COUNCIL MEb~ERS: Seymour and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEb~ERS: Kaywood, Pebley and Sneegas ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Councilman Pebley stated that he agrees with Chief Bastrup's arguments against the regional helicopter service since he has always wanted the City of Anaheim to be independent of other agencies. ~e stated that he views the helicopter as a replacement for the City's protection and that until it can be demonstrated to him that another agency can do more for the City than they can do for themselves, he would like to keep the Police Department the way it has been. Councilman Seymour responded to Councilman Pebley's statement that the type of irresponsible government action indicated is quickly dissipating from 75-970 City ltall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4; 1975~ 1;30 P.M. the political scene and rather than sitting and waiting for something to be proven, the responsible official goes out to seek the answers. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that that portion of Councilman Seymour's motion relating to investigation of a County plan be undertaken at this time. MOTION: Councilman Pebley moved that the City Council authorize the expenditure of funds from Account No. 100-312-160 in the amount of $48,750 for immediate purchase of a replacement helicopter as outlined and recommended by Chief Bastrup. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, Councilwoman Kaywood requested clarification as to whether or not this motion would include the intent that two Council Members conduct a study into the feasibility of providing helicopter service through the Orange County Sheriff's Department or through some other regional or area-wide agreement. Councilman Pebley amended his motion to include such intent. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion as amended. On Roll Call Vote the foregoing motion carried by the following vote: AYES; COUNCIL ME~ERS: Kaywood, Pebley and Sneegas NOES: COUNCIL MEb~ERS: Seymour and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None TPJ~NSFER FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND - PURCi~SE OF REPLACEMENT HELICOPTER: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council authorized the transfer of $22,735 from the Council Contingency Fund for purchase of replacement helicopter for the Anaheim Police Department, total cost of $71,485. To this motion, Council He~.~bers Seymour and Thom voted "no" ~TION CARRIED. · CONTIi~ED PUBLIC HEARING - GENE~'tAL PL~{ ~ND:{ENT NO. 135: To consider an amend- ment to the Circulation Element Highway Rights-of-Way and Arterial Streets and Highways ~.~p of the Anaheim General Plan to realign and/or reclassify Meats Avenue/Lakeview Avenue and Via Escollo and to delete portions of Eucalyptus Drive and Coal Canyon Road and to establish Monte Vista Drive. Ti~e City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-15, recom- mended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 135 as set forth therein and shown on Exhibit "A" and further recommended that subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. Public hearing on said amendment was held January 2~, 1975 and decision continued 60 days and subsequent to that continued several times to this date. A combined Engineering Division and Planning Department staff report dated November 4, 1975 was submitted recommending that General Plan Amendment No. 135 be approved. b~. Phil Schwartze reported that the Canyon General Planning Task Force met in special session last evening in order to review and make recommendations on General Plan Amendment No. 135 inasmuch as the County Board of Supervisors intend to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and propose to include the changes contained in General Plan Amendment No. 135 in their ~ster Plan revision. He pointed out that the City of Anaheim currently has three A.H.F.P. Projects, Canyon Rim Road, Serrano Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard which could be affected if the City's Circulation Element i~ not in conformity with the County ~ster Plan of Arterial Highways, and General Plan Amendment No. 135 is proposed to bring the City's Circulation Element into conformity. He reported that the Canyon General Planning Task Force did recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 135 as proposed and further recommended that any of the arterials to be constructed as four-lane roads be initially constructed, wherever feasible, in a two-lane pilot arterial configuration. The Lakeview Avenue- Crescent extension, which has been the subject of much discussion is basically no longer a consideration in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 135. The Task Force is awaiting a special report on that subject to be submitted by CalTrans in approximately one week. 75-971 City Halll Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1§75~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom inquired whether there was any one in the audience who wished to address the Council regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment and upon ascertaining that there was one gentleman who wished to speak, with the concurrence of the remainder of the Council Members reopened the public hearing. Mr. Roland Krueger, 561Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, advised that he is speaking for the homeowners in Peralta Hills whose primary concern is the apparent lack of concern on the part of engineers in all of the various govern- mental entities for the impact these circulation elements will have on local communities. He remarked that the public is asked to accept summary reports which are subjective in nature without sufficient detailed explanation and documentation in writing, lie reported that the Peralta Hills homeowners were so concerned that they decided to employ a traffic engineer to perform an independent study of the impact of the intersections of Via Escollo and Meats Avenue on Nohl Ranch Road and were informed that based on the information provided in the City Traffic Engineer's report, any findings made in such a study could easily be refuted, and that a complete engineering report is necessary. Mr. Krueger stated that the Peralta tIills homeowners feel that'Via Escoilo and ~eats Avenue should meet and run parallel to Nohl Ranch Road as this would decrease the traffic impact on same. tie stated that he takes issue with the arguments that the City must amend its General Plan to be in conformity with the County ~ster Plan or lose funding for road projects. He felt these differences should be negotiable. He urged that rather than accepting the determinations for the intersections of Via Escollo and Meats Avenue, that the City make a study to attempt to eliminate these intersections onto Nohl Ranch Road. There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Ka~eood pointed out that the City of Villa Park did not accept a road configuration as planned by the County and there is no reason why the City of Anaheim could not also voice disapproval of circulation plans as these come about, without losing money on those projects for which the City needs County approval. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report MOTION CARRIED. ' RESOLUTION NO. 75R-570: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-570 for adoption, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 135 as recommended by the Canyon General Planning Task Force and City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING ~N AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS Ab~NDMENT NO. 135. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL ME~iBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-570 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Seymour moved that a letter be written to the County of Orange advising them that the City of Anaheim is seriously considering the deletion of Lakeview Avenue from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Nohl Ranch Road from the Circulation Element of the General Plan; that research is incomplete at this time; and dependent upon that research if, in fact, the City concludes that the General Plan should be amended to eliminate the extension of Lakeview Avenue or to re-route the proposed extension so that it does not divide the area known as 75-972 Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4 1~_~75 1:30 P.M. Peralta Hills, that the County be so notified. Councilman Thom seconded the mot ion. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED PUBLIC ItEARING - VARIanCE NO. 2721; Submitted by E. J. Johnson to con- struct a free-standing sign on ML zoned property located at 711 South East Street with Code waivers of: a. ~ximum number of signs. b. Permitted sign location. c. Minimum distance between signs. Said item was denied by the City Planning Co~m~ission and subsequently scheduled for public hearing on October 7, 1975 on appeal filed by Mr. Bill l.~urray, the Metz Corporation. Since no representative or agent for the applicant was present at the meeting of October 7, 1975, the City Council con- tinued the hearing to October 28, 1975 and directed that the applicant be so notified. The hearing was then continued from October 28, 1975 to this date at the applicant's request. Mayor Thom asked if tile applicant or his agent were present and there was no response. Upon ascertaining that there were no persons in the audience who wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to Variance No. 2721, the public hearing was closed. The City Council ~4embers were of the opinion that they had afforded the applicant ample opportunity to come forward and state his case for the variance, but that there was apparently no interest in same. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the matter had already cost the City a considerable sum of money to continue it several times. CATEGORICAL EXE~T - ENVIRON~.~E~{TAL I~ACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls with the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from tile requirement to file an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-571: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-571 for adoption sustaining the action taken by the City Planning Commission denying Variance No. 2721. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~AHEIM DEIFYING VARIA2~CE NO. 2721. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ME~BERS: Ka~ood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL :~MBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-571 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10 - AMENOMENT TO CONDITIONS: To consider amendment of Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. 72R-406 and Condition No. 5 of Ordinance No. 3198 requiring "that a 6-foot masonry wall shall be con- structed along the northerly property line with pedestrian accessways at Feather Street and Hampstead Street." Subject property is located at the northwest corner of Walnut Street and Cerritos Avenue and further described as the Pepperwood Condominiums. Mrs. Roberts reported that this public hearing was scheduled as a result of petition and request submitted by the Kaleidoscope Homeowners' Association at the Council meeting of October 14, 1975. Miss Santalahti advised that the Planning Department has no further comments to add to their report dated October 14, 1975. 75-973 City Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Nov-tuber 4, 1975, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to the proposed changes in conditions. Mr. Tom Strykowski, 1381 South Walnut, Anaheim, representing the Kaleidoscope Homeowners' Association, reported that the residents wish legal permission to close off the pedestrian access at Feather Street. I{e noted that the same condition exists for ttampstead Street but does not affect Tract No. 7945 in which he lives, tie advised that currently tile access point is being used to bring off-road vehicles across the condominium property for riding in the construction area to the south. This has caused damage to landscaping and sprinklers on the condominium property. He advised that the only persons whom it would appear the removal of the accessway would inconvenience would be the school children living in the condominium project who travel to ttle north to school; they would have to walk an additional 300 feet. Miss Santalahti reported that notices of this public hearing and the intent to change these conditions were sent to all of the property owners within the condominium itself as well as to residents to the north, in an attempt to notify everyone who might be affected. She advised that no coh~ents were received. It being ascertained that there were no further persons who wished to speak to this matter, Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. 14r. Watts pointed out that the wall in question belongs to the condominium residents and therefore the closure of the access point would be the responsibility of the homeowners' association. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-572: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-572 for adoption amending Resolution No. 72R-406 to change Condition No. 6, so as to no longer require pedestrian accessways at Feather and Hampstead Streets. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TItE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-406 CONDITION NO. 6 OF RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10 PERTAINING TO ZONING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSEnt: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-572 duly passed and adopted. ORDINanCE NO. 3480: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3480 for first reading, amending Ordinance No. 3198 to change Condition No. 5 so as to no longer require pedestrian accessways at Feather and Hampstead Streets. A~N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF A~m{EIM AbmNDING ORDINAi~CE NO. 3198 RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-10 (1)) RECESS: Mayor Thom called for a five-minute recess, ~ich was generally consented by Council Members. (3:33 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City Council being present. (3:38 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-573 - CONTRACT AMENDMENT ;. ~A~IM DISPOSAL COMPANY: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-573 for adoption, approving amend- ment to the contract with C. V. Taormina, dba Anaheim Disposal Company implementing ~m~aama&a~e-ahe-ees~-~me~ease_~_ja,,a~_~A~.~gg6. a charge of $.24 per barrel and providing for an audit to substantiate the cost increase ($.04 per barrel)~ Refer to Resolution Book. by January 31, 1976. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~IEIM APPROVING ~ AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION A2{D DISPOSAL OF RUBBISH ~D WASTE MATERIAL BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND C. V. TAORMINA, DBA AN~IEIM DISPOSAL COb~ANY, (now known as See Council Minutes of January 20, 1976, Page No. 76-38, '~inutes". 75-974 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~]ovember 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. AN~{EIM DISPOSAL, INC., a California corporation), ~ND PROVIDING FOR ~ AUDIT TO SUBST~;TIATE COST INCREASE BY JANUARY 31, 1976. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL biEi,LBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL ~LEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL :.[EMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-573 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-574 - WOPdl ORDER NO. 2095: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-574 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF A1]AiiEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE TIIE CONSTRUCTION AND COb~LETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TO WIT: THE EASTRIDGE RESERVOIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIH, WORK ORDER NO. 2095; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLAiIS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TttE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCOIID~J~CE WITH SAID PLA~;S, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; Ai~D AUTttORIZING AND DIRECTING T}IE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISiI A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CO~ISTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - December 4, 1975, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ME~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The ~yor declared Resolution No. 75R-574 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-575 - BOUNDARY ADJUST~ENT~ YORBA LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-575 for adoption, approving boundary adjustment agreement with the Yorba Linda County Water District necessitated by development of Tract No. ~511. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING BalD AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGRJ{E~ENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Ai.~D YORBA LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH ADJUSTbLENT OF THE BOI~qDARY LINE BETWEEN TIlE PARTIES TO SAID AGREEMENT. (Vicinity of Orangethorpe and Kellogg) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEb~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEP~ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL ME~ERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-575 duly passed and adopted. REPORT - ~a{OLESALE POWER INCREASE FILING - SOUTHE~ CALIFOrnIA EDISON; Mr. Hoyt reported that Southern California Edison, as of Friday, October 31, 1975, filed a wholesale electric increase which has been represented to be 14%. This increase would cost the City of Anaheim an additional six million dollars for power in 1976 assuming that it is in effect the full calendar year. Southern California Edison has asked that it be made effective January 1, 1976. Mr. Hoyt advised that he has been in contact with the Attorneys representing the City in Washington and the review of the filing is under way in an attempt to have it rejected or at least to request the maximum suspension period which would be five months. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRA/~! - ENVISTA: Mr. Kaleb Nelson, representing Envista Inc., presented a brief slide program summarizing one of the services offered by his firm in the field of energy conservation. The presentation described a three-phase program for reduction of energy costs through conservation measures 75-975 City Hall~ Anahcim~ California - CO~tCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1;30 in all City operations. Mr. Nelson estimated that his firm has been able to identify and save 10% to 30% in energy costs for firms located in Southern California and more in areas with severe winters. At the conclusion of his presentation, brief discussion was held during which Councilwoman Ka~ood inquired whether the program Mr. Nelson proposes would use computer controls, and it was explained that sophisticated computer control systems would be a further step subsequent to the three-phase program. ~M. Nelson reported that theirs is an initial program which identifies major energy losers and provides for measures to curtail the loss. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Supervisor Hayes has successfully instituted a conservation program in the Norwalk County Court House, using computer controls, which has reduced electrical consumption by 57% and gas consumption by 38% in the first year. ~ir. !larding advised that for approximately one year the City, under the direction of Dr. Griffith, Paul Hayes and Hank Wiley, has cooperated with the Chamber of Commerce Energy Conservation drive and have cut the consumption rate by 10% to 30%. This is an on-going program which is still in existence. In response to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. Nelson reported that they had performed an energy conservation survey in Orange County for the Irvine Unified School District, from which the methodology proposed for the City was developed. At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council determined that it would be appropriate for the Envista representatives to meet with those members of the City staff involved in the City's energy conservation program, on a no cost basis, to work up a proposal which could then be submitted with staff recommendations for Council consideration. MOTION CARRIED. TRACT NOS. 7566~ 7568~ 7567 AND 7569 - RELEASE OF BONDS ~'~D CASH DEPOSIT: Request of Mr. Fred Armstrong, Grant Company of California, dated October 30, 1975, for release of landscaping bonds for Tract Nos. 7566, 7568, 7569 and for refund of cash deposit in connection with Lot No. 51, Tract No. 7567, was submitted for Council consideration together with report from the City Engineer recommending said request be granted. b~rs. Roberts reported that communication has been received from Mrs. Janice Hall on behalf of the Westridge Homeowners' Association Board of Directors, indicating no objection to release of subject bonds. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized release of landscaping and irrigation bonds for Tract Nos. 7566, 7568 and 7569 and $1,000 cash deposit for cost of improving sidewalk, driveway and curb, Lot No. 51, Tract No. 7567, as recommended by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Sneegas left the Council Chamber. (4:04 P.M.) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the insurance carrier: a. Claim submitted by LeRoy F. and Edith I. Mauller for injuries and damages purportedly sustained as a result of malfunction of traffic signals, on or about July 21, 1975. b. Claim submitted by Larry J. Powell for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about September 26, 1975. c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for damages purportedly sustained to aerial cable as a result of City of Anaheim power pole wire catching afire, falling onto and damaging said cable, on or about October 7, 1975. 75-976 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. d. Claim submitted by Leonard V. Bouas, General Contractors, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of defective transformer supplying power to service, on or about October 7, 1975. 2. CORRESPOi~DENCE: Ttle following correspondence was ordered received and filed: 1975. a. City of Santa Ana- Resolution No. 75-144 - Endorsing Santa Ana as the site for the State Police Olympics. b. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - October 8, 1975. c. Canyon Area General Planning Task Force - Minutes - October 14, 1975. d. Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes - October 2, 1975. e. Anaheim Public Library Board - HIGHLIGHTS - Minutes - September 15, f. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of September, 1975 for the Public Library. 3. ~SEb~NT DEVICES ~qD POOL ROOM PERMITS: The following permits were granted subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Permit for five coin operated machines to be located at the Athens ltellenic Social Club, 2745 Lincoln Avenue (Jmnes Callys, Applicant). b. Pool Room Permit for one pool table to be located at Athens Hellenic Social Club, 2745 Lincoln Avenue, (James Callys, Applicant). Councilman Sneegas temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SB 886 - CITY OF S~TA ~;A: Councilman Seymour requested this correspondence be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, noting that in his review of the information, it appears if SB 886 is successful, it would permit the State of California and therefore the City of Anaheim the authority to create greater restrictions and control over pornographic and obscene materials and he would like to support its passage. In response to Mr. Watts' request for clarification as to whether the Council, in talking about "local community standards" in connection with the definition of obscenity, are referring to standards that would prevail in Anaheim or Orange County or are they referring to State-wide standards. It was indicated that the Council prefers to consider the definition of obscenity on the basis of standards prevailing in the City of Anaheim or County of Orange. By general consent, a letter was authorized for the Mayor's signature to be forwarded to Sacramento in support of SB 886, with definition of "local community standards" defined as those standards prevailing in a community or county-wide area and not State-wide. Councilman Seymour added that he has been informed some cities have included in their anti-pornographic ordinance a prohibition that the type of sex-oriented material usually found in newsracks cannot be placed any closer than a mile and one-half from a school. He requested that the City Attorney's Office look into the potential addition of such a section to the City of Anaheim ordinance. CITY PL~.RIING CO~MMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 13, 1975 pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council infornmtion and consideration. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council authorized the action pertaining to environmental impact require- ments as recommended by the City Planning Commission and sustained the actions taken by the City Planning Co~ission in connection with the following applications: (Item Nos. 1 through 6) 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The Planning Director has detern, ined that the proposed activity in Variance No. 2738 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 environmental impact report. 75-977 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. 2. VARIANCE NO. 2590 - ~4ENDi,{E?IT TO CONDITION: Submitted by Tom Whiting of Southland Corporation, for amendment of Condition No. 11 pertaining to hours of operation of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC74-73 to permit the 7-Eleven store at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and East Street to remain open 24 hours a day. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PG75-212, approved the requested amendment to Condition No. 11. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2519 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by John P. Tyler, Store Safe, Inc., for a one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to establish a mini-warehouse in the ML Zone at the northwest corner of White Star Avenue and Blue Gum Way. The City Planning Commission, by motion, granted a one-year extension of time expiring June 25, 1976. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PE~.{IT NO. 1212 - TERMINATION: Request submitted by T. A. Dobbie for termination of said conditional use permit in compliance with the Planning Commission recommendations adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1563. Subject property is located at 314 South BrookhurSt Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-210, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1212. 5. VARIANCE NO. 2738: Application by Robert P. and Francine E. Hamm to con- struct a house addition at 1776 Holbrook Street with Code waiver of: a. Maximum coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-209, granted said variance subject to one condition. 6. TRACT NO. 8910: Submitted by Roland T. Reynolds, to develop 39 RS-7200 lots at 505 South Sunkist Street. Tract No. 8910 was continued to be considered in conjunction with Reclassification No. 75-76-10 and Variance No. 2743. Councilman Sneegas temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 13, 1975, pertaining to the following applications were removed from the above Consent Calendar for discussion and separate action by the City Council. 1. E.I.R. NEGATIVE DECLARATION - GRADING PERMIT FOR PARK SITE: (Northeast of the intersection of Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road) Request for negative declaration status from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report was submitted by the Engineering Division of the City of Anaheim for the Orange Unified School District to concurrently grade a school site and City of Anaheim park site east of the future Via Cabrillo Street. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environ- ment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Sneegas temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1562 AND E.I.R. NO. 152 ~D ADDENDUM: Submitted by Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., to construct a public equest'rian center on RS-A- 43,000 (SC) zoned property at the southerly corner of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road with Code waivers of: a. Permitted location of specified equestrian facilities. b. Minimum front setback. At their September 15, 1975 meeting, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-189, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1562 for a period of five years, subject to conditions. 75-978 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. At the meeting of October 13, 1975, the City Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC75-211, reaffirming approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1562 and recommendation for certification of E.I.R. No. 152 and addendum. The Deputy City Clerk submitted correspondence received this date from Anaheim Hills, Inc. requesting a 30-day continuance on Conditional Use Permit No. 1562 and E.I.R. No. 152 and addendum inasmuch as they are currently in negotiations with the City Attorney's Office to enter into lease agreement with the City of Anaheim for the original equestrian center site to be located on Nohl Ranch Road, two blocks east of the Anaheim Hills Fire Station. Councilman Sneegas returned to Council Chambers. (4:12 P.M.) On advice of the City Attorney that unless there is an action taken, the conditional use permit automatically becomes effective, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, Conditional Use Permit No. 1562 and E.I.R. No. 152 and addendum were set for public hearing, with advertising expense incurred to be paid by the applicant. MOTION CARRIED. 3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-24 - APPROVAL OF PRECISE PL~S: Submitted by George J. Heltzer and Diana Kolodziejski for approval of revised plans for a commercial shopping center on CL zoned property located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council approved the precise plans submitted as recommended by the City Planning Commission, subject to review and approval of precise landscaping plans. MOTION CARRIED. FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT - FOUNTAIN VALLEY HIGH SCiiOOL: Application filed by Ms. Carolyn Lux of Astro Pyrotechnics for permit to allow public fireworks display, sponsored by Fountain Valley High Scl~ool, on November 7, 1975 at Anaheim Stadium, during half time, was submitted and granted as requested on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley. To this motion, Councilwoman Ka~ood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. FIREWORKS DISPLAY PE~-iIT - LOS AL~,iITOS ilIGH SCHOOL: Application filed by l.ir. R. Souza, General Manager, California Fireworks Display Co~apany, for permit to allow public fireworks display sponsored by Los Alamitos High School at Western High School Stadium on November 7, 1975 during half time was submitted and granted as requested, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley. To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTIOlq CARRIED. BUILDING CODE VIOLATION APPEAL: (Delos and Esther E. Arms, 1630 South Ha~)stead Street) Appeal of citation for violation of Sections 203 and 301 of the Uniform Building Code, filed by Delos and Esther E. Arms, 9942 Shiloh Avenue, Whittier, California, 90603, in connection with property located at 1630 South Hampstead Street, Anaheim, was submitted for Council consideration together with memorandum from the Chief Building Inspector dated October 15, 1975 and Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6 attached thereto. The Deputy City Clerk advised that Mr. Arms, in addition to his letter of August 24, 1975, has submitted correspondence dated November 4, 1975, copies of which were furnished each Council Member. The Chief Building Inspector points out the following substandard conditions in accordance with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim pursuant to Ordinance No. 2696 in his memorandum of October 15, 1975: 1. Inadequate sanitation as evidenced by: a. No windows or operable exhaust fans in the bathrooms in units "a" and "b". b. Lack of window screens on windows required for ventilation. c. Deteriorated and unsanitary shower enclosures in the bathrooms. 2. Structural hazards as evidenced by: 75-979 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. a. The fact that the floor in the upstairs bathroom in unit "b" was soft and spongy indicating deteriorated structural framing due to wet rot. 3. Mechanical hazards as evidenced by: a. Lack o£ an adequate circulating air supply. b. Use of the corridor as a return air plenum. c. Air ducts constructed out of plywood. d. Lack of adequate heating facilities due to the lack of individual controls of the heat supply to each unit. 4. Electrical hazards as evidenced by: a. Lack of electrical outlets in the new partitions as required by the Electrical Code. Mr. Delos Arms read his letter dated November 4, 1975 to the Council which lists a summation of replies to each of the conditions reported as substandard and/or illegal on his rental property by the Chief Building Inspector and to the chronological listing of events pertaining to the order to correct ti~e Code violation. In general, b~. Arms contended that: this four-unit apartment building has not been converted to four dwelling units and ten separate guest rooms; that there has been no new construction either by subtraction or addition except for interlocking, self-sustaining screen dividers which have since been removed in two of the units; that there has not been nor has there ever been a plywood heating duct; that the exhaust fans in the two bathrooms have been removed for repair or replacement; that there is a forced air furnace in each of tile four units and outlets in all rooms except the bathrooms, without thermostats in each room, but he knows of no other family or business that has thermostats in each room either; that there is no lack of electrical outlets as required by Code, he has not moved or eliminated any outlets or made other changes to the wiring system; that there is a circulating air supply.and more than adequate ventilation; that the upstairs bathroom floor appears soft and spongy because the sub-floor is not nailed down tightly enough, but that there was nothing structurally wrong nor any indication of deterioration. In conclusion, Mr. Ams remarked that in his opinion the four-plex unit is now maintained in a much superior fashion than ~len he acquired the property. He claimed that he was being harassed by the City because of the various inspections, etc. He noted that he had received no reply to his letter dated August 24, 1975 until he had indicated he intended to appeal to the City Council. In response to the Mayor, the City Attorney advised that his office did meet and discuss this situation with Mr. Arms, although no written reply to his letter was sent. Mr. Van Dorpe stated that the issues in this case are not particularly clear, but that on August 27, 1975, after receiving a complaint, tile Building Division had informed Mr. Arms that he had performed some work on subject structure without the necessary building permit. Mr. Van Dorpe stressed that the only violation for which Mr. Arms has been cited was the lack of building permit to construct these dividing partitions, although several other illegal or substandard conditions noted as a result of field inspection have been brought to Council's attention and will be followed up by the Building Division. Mr. Van Oorpe advised that the Building Code defines as a temporary partition any dividing structure which is up to three-quarters of the height of the room. A partition which extends the full height of the room is considered permanent. In this particular instance, he pointed out that the partitions have been installed to separate sleeping areas and are equipped with doors and locks. During considerable discussion regarding the room dividers, Mr. Arms contended that these were temporary in nature, were three-quarters to one-inch wide, designed with tongue and groove connections and could have been free- standing although they were secured to the wall. He remarked that the man who installed them advised him a building permit would not be necessary. During the discussion, Mr. Kirkhart of the Building Division described the room dividers as they appeared on his inspection of the building, indicating that 75-9g0 .City ~tall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - i~ovember 4, 1975, 1:30 P.M. these were built on 2 by 2 framework, with grooved connections of one-quarter inch plywood, secured floor to ceiling, with 4 by ~ plywood paneling in between. At the conclusion of the discussion it was noted by the ~yor t~at if ~r. Arms wishes to run a low cost rooming house, there is ~o law against it, but that he would be required to obtain a building pen~it and comply with the various ];uilding and Electrical Codes. ?~r. Van Dorpe outlined the various improvements and corrections which Mr. Arms would be required to ra~ke in order to obtain a building permit. Hr. Van Dorpe also mentioned that it was staff's understanding that Mr. Arms might have to obtain a variance from tl~e Zoning Code to operate a rooming house at that particular location. ~.~r. Watts responded that this was one of the results of the meeting conducted by the City Attorney's Office with Mr. Arms, that while it is his opinion that what Mr. Arms is currently doing is not in compliance with the spirit of the Zoning Code, l~e feels it is possible that the Code as written does permit him to do so. He reported that an amendment which addresses itself to this problem is scheduled to be set for public hearing on this Agenda. At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the owner of property located at 1630 South Hampstead Street, was permitted two weeks (to November 13, 1975) to obtain a building permit, and 90 days (ending February 2, 1976) to 0ring the property into compliance with the City and State Codes. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood queried staff members as to Mr. Arms' allegation that he was being harassed by the City, and Mr. Van Dorpe assured Council Members that there is no such intent, that his division was not on the premises on the date indicated by ~. Arms as statements to that effect were r~de. _REQUEST - PLACEMENT OF Tile 5% AD~"II$SION-A}~USEMENT Tf~i Oi~ THE 1976 GENERAL MUNICIPAL BALLOT: Mr. Bill Daly, 526 North Century Drive, Anaheim, 92805, who had requested an opportunity to address the Council regarding placement of the 5% Admission-Amusement Tax issue on the ballot for tile April 1976 General Hunicipal Election, was recognized by the Mayor. Mr. Daly stated that he was appalled not so much by the outcome of the 5% Admission-Amusement Tax, but in the manner in which the decision was handled. He noted that three Council Members voted to introduce the concept for con- sideration and when approximately 300 people, some of whom were not even citizens of Anaheim, made a power play, the decision was reversed. He questioned whether if 3,000 citizens appeared the following week in support of the tax proposal, the decision would again be changed. Mr. Daly stated that he believes whenever an issue is ascertained to affect the entire population of Anaheim, the people should be able to express their feelings at the ballot box. Mr. Daly proposed that the Council appoint Councilman Seymour to write the statement in favor of the tax and permit any opponent who wishes to express himself to do likewise. Mr. Daly remarked that his presence at the Council meeting this date is further to focus attention on the concept that this country needs far more representative government than is presently offered. He advised that if the Anaheim City Council wants to extend as much representative government as possible to the people, he would propose that in this coming April election, they allow the citizens to vote on whether or not they would like to establish a system of district representation in this City. In conclusion Mr. Daly urged that both these issues be placed on the April 1976 ballot and offered to write the statement in favor of district representation in Anaheim. He advised that he was not asking for immediate action, but wished to bring these matters to Council's attention for consideration at this time. l,,~yor Thom noted that he agreed with the basic philosopi~y of Mr. Daly's statement, lie stated that he feels his action taken a few weeks ago, reversing his decision on the Admission-Amusement Tax was in tile best interests of the 75-981 ~ity itall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1;30 P.M. City of Anaheim. lie concurred that major issues should be voted on by the public and with the observation that the City should move perhaps towards district representation. In this connection he felt the citizens should actually participate in the study preparatory to placing such issue on the ballot. To accomplish this he suggested a committee be formed similar to the Citizens Capital Improvement Committee of 1968 as this would be the appropriate forum for discussion. Councilman Seymour recalled, for the record that he asked that the 5% Admission-Amusement Tax be placed on the ballot at the time the decision to proceed with the tax was reversed. Although he felt strongly at that time that the issue should be voted on by the people, after giving the subject considerable thought, one of the reasons there was no visible ground swell of support for the proposed tax was that the issue was never communicated nor understood. The large corporate interests involved emotionalized the issue and the real problem of capital improvements needed in the City was never discussed. He remarked that he now feels, after this additional period of reflection, that if this amusement tax proposal were placed on the 1976 ballot, the same thing would happen; the large corporate interests would spend unknown amounts of money in a campaign against the tax. He remarked that it is clear to him that before this question can be placed on the ballot the issue and problem have to be understood by the people. To accomplish this, he would suggest that a citizens committee of substantial size, perhaps 300 to 400 members, should be established to study the problem. Following their deliberation of the problem, perhaps this con~ittee could come up with some alternatives as he had requested all along through the heated debate, and then the alternatives as well as the Admission-Amusement Tax could be presented to the voters to make the final determination. He concluded that there is much more probability to the success of the Admission-Amusement Tax if such a process were first followed. In terms of a time frame, Councilman Seymour suggested that he would like to see such a committee established and perhaps meeting during the first week of January, 1976. In reply to Mr. Daly's comments on district representation, Councilman Seymour felt that the appropriate preparation for that concept would be to submit the proposal to a City Charter Review Com~nittee, and he would be willing to appoint such a cdmmittee to look at the entire City Charter, once the more in~nediate problem of capital improvements and long-term financing plan for same have been resolved. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that a Citizens Capital Improvement Committee, consisting of approximately 300 members, be appointed by the City Council to convene and discuss and research the problem of necessary capital improvements throughout the City, with their first meeting to be held during the first week of January, 1976. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion MOTION CARRIED. ' CONDITIONAL USE PE~X~IT NOS. 1063 ~D 1072 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Mr. Clarence McNees for a three-month extension of time to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1063 and 1072 to permit finalization of C-R zoning on his property with deferment of C-R site developments other than the 40-foot dedication until such time as development occurs on the entire property was submitted together with an excerpt from the City Planning Commission meeting held October 29 1975. ' Miss Santalahti reported that subject property is located on the north side of Katella Avenue, near the intersection of Manchester and Haster. The existing uses on the property were established by conditional use permits granted in 1968 which come up on an annual basis for time extensions. Miss Santalahti stated that since this property lies adjacent to Haster Street there is a 53-foot dedication requirement for an arterial highway. At the Planning Commission public hearing when both conditional use permits were considered, it was noted that subject property is part of the commercial- recreational area and dedication for street widening purposes along Haster Street would therefore be required. However waiver of that required dedication was granted until such time as redevelopment or other disposition was made of the property with review of this condition on an annual basis. 75-982 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti reported that the applicant now would be willing to consider partial dedication on Haster Street and would like to finalize the C-R zoning on the property. However the resolution of intent to the C-R Zone includes the condition that full dedication be made which would require a public hearing to amend. This item has been scheduled before the Planning Commission on November 10, 1975. A three-month extension of time would allow consideration of that amendment to the condition to be heard and decided prior to the necessity for review of t]~e time extension in terms of the dedication question. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council granted a three-month extension of time to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1063 and 1072 expiring January 7, 1976 and February 4, 1976, respectively. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1~ - SCi~EDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, proposed amendment to Title 18 regarding definitions of guest and lodging ]~ouses and methods for termination or modification of conditional use permits and variances was set for public hearing on November 13, 1975, 2:3~) P.M. bDTIOi~ CARRIED. RESOLUTION ~O. 75R-576 - GILA~NT DEED - HAROLD D. SEWELL: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-576 for adoption, authorizing execution of a grant deed to Harold D. Sewell. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUi~CIL OF THE CITY OF Ai~AIiEIM AUTliORIZIi~G EXECUTIO~ OF A DEED TO CERTAIN CITY-O~C~ED PROPERTY (~tAROLD D. SEWELL, CP #13). (Property located on the west slate of Euclid, north of Crescent Avenue) i~oll Call Vote: AYES: COUi~CIL I~'~i{B~iRS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom 14OES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: l~one ABSENT: COUNCIL ~iE~U3Ei'~S: i~one The l.~yor declared Resolution No. 75R-576 duly passed and adopted. CAi~CELLATION OF COUNTY TAXES: (Right-of-Way No. 1780, ~;trip of land adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road) On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the Orange County Board of Supervisors was requested to cancel County taxes on property acquired by the City of Anaheim for municipal purposes pursuant to Resolution No. 75R-5OA, formorly assessed to American National llousing Corporation, recorded September 30, 1975, as Document No. 31663, in Book No. 11525, at Page No. 1617 Offical Records of Orange County, California. }~TION CARRIED. PURCi~SE OF EQUIPMENT - 16 DETECTIVE UNITS: Meraorandum from the City I~nager's Office recommending purchase of 16 vehicles from ttertz Rent-a-Car, 14 of which would replace detective units and 2 would constitute new detective units, was submitted. Said memorandum noted that the City would save approximately $1,000 per car over the purchase of 1976 models by purchasing through Hertz and would also be able to acquire a good mix of automobiles which would assist the Police Department in their undercover work. Councilman Sneegas stated that he would prefer some additional figures prior to making a decision on this purchase since, from what has been presented, it would appear to him that the Hertz Company has received the best 12,000 miles from these automobiles. He felt it ~aight be a wise way to purchase if the prices were based on years, but in terms of mileage, he could not see the savings. Mr. llarding reported that a one-year guarantee would be provided from Hertz for these automobiles. By general consent, decision on purchase of 14 replacement and 2 new detective units from Hertz Rent-a-Car was deferred to the meeting of November 11, 1975, pending submittal of additional information. 75-983 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. ~yor Thom left the Council Chamber and Mayor Pro Tem Seymour assumed Chairmanship of the meeting. (5:20 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-577 - DEEDS OF EASMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-577 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TttE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF AxNAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.; Texaco Anaheim IIills, Inc.; Esco Development Company; Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc.; Frank E. Feldhaus, et al.; Lawrence R. Tangney, et ux.; David Lipchak, et ux.; Dan Carter; Gordon F. Spence, et ux.; George Oswald Fowler, et ux.; Marvin M. Dean, et ux.; Dean M. Logsdon, et ux; Helse F. Brattlof, et ux.; Marjorie M. Christensen) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None SMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL ~.~ERS: Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-577 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-578 - MOHLER DRIVE NO. 4 ~?~EXATIOi~: (Uninhabited) Pursuant to authority granted by the Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 75-130, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-578 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF ~{EIb! APPROVING THE ~NEXA- TION TO TIlE CITY OF ~tEI~! OF TIlE TERRITORY ~0~ ~D DESIGNATEO MOI{LER DRIVE NO. 4 ANNEXATION. (Approximately 2.5 acres located south of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Mohler Drive) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ~MPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL ME~BERS: Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL ~{EMBERS: None The ~-~yor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-578 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3481: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3481 for first reading. ~ ORDIMANCE OF TIlE CITY OF AN~IEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF TIlE ~EIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-59 (3), CO) UP COMING MEETINGS (SCAG AND LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS,: Councilwoman Kaywood advised of the following meetings to be held during the coming week, to which the public is invited: Public hearing for the Orange County area on preliminary regional trans- portation plan to be conducted by SCAG, November 7, 1975 in the Santa Aha City Council Chamber at 1:30 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. Forum on solid waste to be conducted by the League of Women Voters at the Disneyland Ilotel, November 6, 1975, from 9:00 A. bi. to 3:00 P.M. .~ECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Pebley moved to recess to ~xecutive Session. Councilman sneegas seconded the motion. Councilman Thom temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City Council being present. (6:55 P.M.) 75-984 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. ,RESOLUTION NO. 75R-579 - CONDEMNATION OF WELL SITE (SOUTHWEST CO~;ER OF BALI, ROAD AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE): Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-579 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TltE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE NECES- SITY FOR AND DIRECTIi]G THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF A UTILITY SUBSTATION. (Summers, Sedlak, Allen) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ME~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL b~MBERS: None The l~yor declared Resolution No. 75R-579 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT - CREDITORS COMMITTEE PL~ - C~YON GENERAL HOSPITAL: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was authorized to consent to the Creditors Committee Plan in connection'with bankruptcy proceedings on Canyon General Hospital, with the condition that such approval does not constitute any waiver to Dr. Ninburg on his personal liability to the City of Anaheim for utility bills, if any. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOU~Yb~NT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6: 58 P.M. ALONA M. tlOUGARD, CITY CLE~ By .~~~. ~'~~ Deputy