1974/10/2974-1037
Cit~ ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - October. 291 ,1974, !:30 P.N'
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL HENBERS:
Thom
COUNCIL HEIiBERS: Pebley
CITY NANAGER: Keith A. Hurdoch
ADHINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: William Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
'CITY CLERK: Alona H. Hougard
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. HcRae
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Piaddox
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Annika Santalahti
Kayvood, Seymour, Sneegas (arrived 1:35 P.M,) and
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Ditrtam K~y~ood led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag. '
IrrITATION - A.F.S.C.I. RECEPTION~ NOVEMBER 7~ 1974: Mr. Peluso, representing
the American Foundation for the Science of Creative Intelligence~
extended a verbal invitation~ in addition rathe written invitation
already forwarded to all City Council Members, to attend the A.F.S.C.I.
reception November 7~ 1974 from 3:00 to 5~00 p.m. at the Bahia Corinthian
Yacht Club~ Corona Del Mar, which will honor Orange County Governmental
Leaders. (Hr. Peluso distributed packets of information to Council
members.)
FIRST H0~IHLY REPORT - FINANCIAL AND ~ANAGEHENT PRACTICES AUDIT - AUTHUR YOUNG &
COHPANY.[. Dig. Jim LeSteur of Authur Young & Company.presented the first smnthly report
to the City Council on the Financial and Management PractiCes Audit initiated.
October 1, 1974. (Copy of said report and Attachments Nos. A, B and C on file in
the Office of the City Clerk.) He reviewed the objectives of these tva audits:
The Financial Audit - to render an opinion on the City's financial statement for
the year ending June 30, 1975 in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles; Management Practices Audit - to identify cost-effective ways of
improving the City's operations.
Mr. LeSieur advised of preliminary meetings with the Steering Committee
and outlined the process for the conducting of the audits. He noted that work
plans have been prepared and will be reviewed with appropriate department heads,
following which detailed york plans will be submitted for Council approval. The
review of departments will then be conducted. He advised that the Arthur Young &
Company representatives will constantly review their findings with the particular
department or division head with ~hom they are working. Bi-veek.ty 'reviews will
be held vlth the Audit Steering Committee and a monthly report will be presented
to the City Council on the status of implementation of the Arthur Young & Company
recommendations. A final report will be presented at the end of the project
en~agement~ which is estimated to be December of 1975.
Mr. LeSieur submitted the following documents this date fOr Council
approval:
Attachment No. A - General project schedule.
Attachment No. B - Initial task plans for each project.
Attachment No. C - Task plans for the first four projects.
Hr. LeSieur indicated the intent of Arthur Young & Company is to keep
the proposed schedule as flexible as possible.
Hr. LeSteur briefly reported on the status of the work completed to
date, namely initiation of an overview of the entire City, as veil ~s of the
Utilities Department; they are currently in the process of developing a detailed
work plan for review of the Utilities Department; initiation of review of License
Division and Purchasing and Stores Division.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Counctlm~n Tho~ the City
Covnctl approved the task plans for the four initial projects ~s set forth in
Attachment No. C submitted this date by Arthur Young & Company. NOTION CARRIED.
74-1038
City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1:3,0 P.M.
ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF CO~I~F, RCE POSITION ON PROPOSITION "A"t NOVEMBER 5~ ~974 BALLOT
(O.C.T.D. 1% SALES TAX INCREASE): Mayor Thom explained that through oversight he had
neglected to advise the Chamber of Commerce when the subject of Proposition "A"
was scheduled before Council for discussion and possible action (See Council
Minutes, October 15, 1974, Resolution No. 74R-517, Page 74-1034) and, therefore,
apologized and introduced Mr. Joe Wade who wished to present the Chamber position
on this matter.
Mr. Joe Wade, President of the Anaheim Chamber of Comerce thanked the
Council for this opportunity to present their position in opposition to Proposi-
tion "A". He briefed the basic observations made by the Chamber Directors which
led to their vote against support of Proposition '~" based on the following
reasons:
1. O.C.T.D. plans are too vague and inaccurate for the Anaheim Chamber
of Commerce to approve passage of Proposition '~".
2. A demonstrated need does not exist for passage of Proposition "A".
Current usage does not require the vast expenditure of tax funds to build a mass
rapid transit system.
3. Voters who created the O.C.T.D. did not approve or envision a
master plan for rail mass transit; the heavy subsidizing of fares or the creation
of dial-a-ride programs.
Mr. Wade stressed that the Chamber Directors were not voting against
public transit as such, but rather against the proposed level of public transit
with its construction and operational costs as envisioned in Proposition "A";
that the Chamber was not in opposition to the concept of a sales tax, if needed,
to finance a public service, but rather feels that in this inflationary period
the low priority for am expanded transit system does not merit an additional $.01
sales tax on the public.
In conclusion, Mr. Wade thanked the City staff for the invitation to
the recent seminar on Inner-City Transit Plans and suggested that this seminar
also be previewed for the Chamber Board of Directors.
Mayor Thom thanked Mr. Wade for his presentation and noted that there
are times when the Council and Chamber will differ in their opinions, but felt
that a positive approach in these situations would prove beneficial.
Councilman Sneegas pointed out that the vote on adoption of Resolution
No. 74R-$17 in support of Proposition "A" was split three and two, not all Members
of the City Council having voted in favor of Proposition '~".
MINUTES: On ~otion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Minutes
of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings of September 17 and 24, 1974, and
Adjourned Regular Meetings of September 24 and October 9, 1974 were approved with
the.following corrections authorized to the Regular Meeting of September 24,
1974: Page No. 74'963, Paragraph No. 4 - insert the words "(who was present for
part of the hearing)" following "a member of the audience, Dr. Kmtt,".
Page No. 74-963, Paragraph No. 8 - amended to read "Councilwoman Kaywood
inquired whether there is a requirement as to how many rooms an operator must
have available at the low rate advertised, as he may have Just one or two rooms
at that rate and then tell the individual they are rented Hut that more expensive
rooms are available."
MOTION CARRIED. (Councilman Sneegas abstained from voting on the
Minutes of September 24, 1974, 1:30 P.M., due tO absence.)
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of
the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY
CARRIED.
REPORT - FINA~ICIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $411,~83.08 for the period ending October 22, 1974, and $464,350.86. for the
period ending October 29, 1974, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were-
approved.
74-1039
City Ha!l~:Ane~im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -October 29, 1974, 1:3o
Mr, Charles Roberts, Zoning Supervisor reported that notice has been received
fro~ the Orange County Planning Department that an application h~s been filed and
will be considered by the Orange County Planning C~ission at 3:30 p.m., October
29, 1974, to establish a reclamation project for the Burris Sand Pit to be used
as a dump site for inert materials. The property in question is in the County A1
Geaeral Agricultural District, bordered on the north by South Street, on thewest
by single-family residential subdivisions in the City of Anaheim, on the south by
Ball Road, and on the east by the Santa Ana River. The application states that
this reclamation project will provide a needed disposal site for up to 10 million
cubic yards of inert materials and will involve a period of up to ten years.
Mr. Roberts further reported that several calls were received from
residents in the vicinity of subject property indicating their concern that this
site may be used at a later date as a recreational vehicle park of so~e sort.
Discussion of this possibility with the Orange County Planning Departamnt dis-
closes that this is not one of the requests being considered on this application,
and if such use would be desired it would require separate hearings.
Due to the potential inconveniences to adjacent residents which might
result from the reclamation project, the Development Services Department recom-
mended that the Council consider forwarding.rec~endations to the Orange County
Planning Commission that if UP-3560 is granted:
1. That all vehicular access to the property during the filling
operation shall be from Ball Road, only.
2. That appropriate steps be taken throughout the filling operation to
eliminate dust.
3. That the hours of operation be limited to normal daylight hours.
4. That the water well located on Rio Vista be abandoned in order that
this noisy equipment will not present further nuisance to Anaheim residents.
5. That provisions be made during the filling operation to control the
rodent population on the site.
In explanation of the foregoing recommendations, Mr. Roberts noted that
the proposal is to conduct this filling operation from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Me
reported that during excavation of the sand pit a water well located on Rio Vista
Street was used, which operated via a combustion engine, and was the source of
much noise, resulting in many complaints from nearby residents.
Mayor Thom felt the hours proposed for operation of the fill were
lengthy, and concurred with the staff recommendations presented. He stated that
he would prefer a staff member attend the hearing to present.these recommendations
in person.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that, at present,-the sand pit is so low
that anything placed in it would affect the water table. Therefore, if only
inert materials would be permitted to be dumped, this would 'be a protection.
Councilman Sneegas advised that he was glad to see progress being made
to alleviate this attractive nuisance and hazard. He stated he would prefer to
have the water well not Just abandoned but removed and the west side of Rio Vista
Street widened to ultimate width because this is a tremendous traffic hazard.
He agreed that the hours of operation seem lengthy but felt that perhaps it may
be best to fill this hole as quickly as pdssible, because it is a terribly hazard-
ous place for children and is a police patrol problem. In addition he felt it
would be to the advantage of the nearby property owners to complete the reclama-
tion as quickly as possible because of problems during rainy seasOns with slides
on the embankments of the pit.
In answer to Council questions, Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assis-
tant, advised that the proposed dump site would be open to anyone who wished to
uH it for dumping of inert materials and a per ton fee would be charged. A
gtmrd would be posted to weigh and inspect the load and collect the fee. He
further noted that the fill would most likely be conducted without use of heavy
equip~ent for compacting and therefore much less noise would be created. He
reported that the City of Anaheim has been using a dump site Justnorth of the
Barrio Sand Pit in this manner for some time, without any complaint.
74-1040
City Hall~ Anshetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ !:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified for the record, that the Burris Sand Pit
is on County territory and not within the JurisdictiOn of the Anaheim City Council.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council directed a member of the Development Services Department staff to
appear at the hearing relative to UP-3560 before the Orange County Planning Com-
mission; and to convey that the Anaheim City Council is in favor of the reclama-
tion project since it will eliminate an existing hazardous and attractive nuisance
problem, however does strongly recommend, if such use is approved, for the protec-
tion of the adjoining residents that the above-noted conditions be implemented
with addition to'No. 4 to add "and that the dedication and improvements for ulti-
mate right-of-way on the west side of Rio Vista Street be made". MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - FAIRMONT BOULEVARD GENERAL ALIGNMENT: To consider the establishment
of the general alignment of Fairmont Boulevard from Santa Ann Canyon Road to
Canyon Rim Road.
City Engineer James P. Maddox advised that over the past several months
the Engineering staff has reviewed the possibilities of connecting Santa Ann
Canyon Road with Canyon Rim Road. The studies which have evolved were posted on
the east wall of the Council Chambers and labeled Alternate Nos. A, B and C. The
alternate routes represent three of the alignments which are believed to be fea-
sible and practical and which do conform to the requirements of the County since
this would be an A.H.F.P. project. He advised that the three alternates are
roughly similar in total costs in terms of cut-and-fill which would be necessary.
The City Engineering Division recommends Alternate No. C 'for the reason that it
is a somewhat straighter alignment, having less total curvature involved. He
noted that Alternate No. C was originally recommended, however the McCarthy
Company who was preparing development plans for a parcel in the area at that time
preferred Alternate No. B. The McCarthy Company has subsequently submitted a
tentative map which did incorporate Alternate No. C.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the general ali~n-
ment of Fairmont Boulevard.
Mr. Ronald Bevins, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, Attorney representing
Pierre Nicolas, owner of 13.3 acres of property affected by the .proposed align-
meat' of Fairmont Boulevard, advised that Alternate No. B severs his Client's
property entirely; Alternate Nos. A and C would involve a taking of property and
severance which would constitute 25% of the parcel, or 3.5 of the 13.3 acres.
He related some of the discussions on alternate alignments which Were held in the
past, and in particular, a general alignment proposal prepared by the Planning'
Division showings general alignment for this connection road which did not
affect the Nicolas property at all, being located further easterly and entirely
on the Del Giorgio parcel. This map was reviewed by Council Members at the
Council Table and at the request of the Mayor, Mr. Bevins reported that it was
dated May, 1973.
Subsequent to this, Mr. Bevins related the developers of the Del Giorgio
property submitted tentative tract maps which proposed another alignment of
Fairmont Boulevard. Mr. Bevins indicated that he wished to make the point that
he did not think roads should be aligned based on who submits the first tract
map.
Mr. Bevins indicated that an alignment wassuggested which would more
closely follow the property line of the Nicolas and Del Giorgio parcels, leaving
approximately one-half of the roadway on either property, and an engineering
study on this alignment indicates it to be a reasonable alternative.
Mr. Bevins stated that if it is determined that Alternate No. C is the
best solution for this alignment, and the City upon submission of a tentative map
by Mr. Nicolas requires him to dedicate 3.5 acres to build the road, he would
submit that the City is taking the property without compensating the owner, which
is unfair and inequitable. Mr. Bevins contended that if the City is going to
impose Alternate No. C, then Mr. Nicolas should be comPensated to some extent~
He asserted, that Mr. Nicolas should not have to bear the burden or,dedicating 25I
of his property for a secondary arterial highway which is being built for the
74-1041
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ .1974~ 1:30 P.M.
general welfare of the people in Anaheim Hills and the Coumty of Orange, as evi-
demced by approval of funds under the County A.H.F.P. program. Re requested that
Mr. King be permitted to speak on the alignment study conducted on behalf of the
Nicolas property.
Mr. Tom King of Millett-King Associates, Fullerton, reported that his
firm did complete a study on the.ali~nment of Fairmont Boulevard following the
gemeral direction of the Nicolas property line. He noted that he did not have
the original but presented a study sheet for Council inspection and advised that
this proposed alignment basically incorporates the City's proposal, however,
follows the property line in the vicinity of the Nicolas-Del Giorgio property
boundaries. (Said study sheet was reviewed at the Council Table.) In answer to
Cotmcil questions, Mr. King advised that this study was prepared before
Alternate Nos. A, B and C were completed by the City Engineering Division.
Councilman Seymour asked if any cost analysis was ever done relative to
th~ alternatives shown on the study sheet as opposed to Alternate No. C by
either Mr. King's firm or the City Engineering staff, and it was discerns4 that
this had never been donm.
There was disagreement as to whether or not this plan had ever been
submitted to and discussed by the City Engineering staff, Mr. Maddox and
Mr. Devitt indicating they had not seen the proposal, and Mr. King, indicatin$
that while not at the meeting personally, he knew that a member of his firm had
met with Mr. Devitt.
Councilman Seymour voiced consternation over the fact that the align-
memt study prepared by Millett-King Associates, which appears to be a viable
alternative, was never analyzed by the City staff along with other alignments,
and that after more than a year of consideration and study, this alignment cannot
be evaluated because staff has never analyzed the cost factors involved.
Considerable discussion ensued during which Mr. Maddox pointed out that
the three alternate alignments, A, B and C under consideration are not precise
and there is room for minor adjustment on any of these routes.
Mr. Devitt explained the parameters involved in design of the roadway
and in particular stressed that because this would be a Joint City/County project
with A.~.F.P. financing, the alignment must conform to COunty specifications and
have a design speed of 45 m.p.h, and no curve can have a radius of less than 1000
feet. He indicated on the alignment exhibits posted that there are designated
points both on Canyon Rim Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road which the proposed
Fairmont route must intersect in order to align with Fairmont Boulevard going
north across the River. Other important factors to be taken into consideration
are the grade and profile of the proposed alignment. Using a template of the
1,O00-foot radius curve as a demonstration tool, Mr. Devitt explainedwhy the
En~ineering Division has proposed Alternate No. C as the most logical alignment
which still' conforms to County curvature and grade requirements, although some
minor adjustments to these may be possible.
Mr. Devitt explained that the City's primary concern was developing an
alignment which would affect the minimumnumber of properties, and be the most
economical route in the event that the need for condemnation of properties arises.
He advised that informational meetings have been held with all of the property
owners in an attempt to obtain their consent, and all property owners affected,
with the exception of two (Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Nicolas), indicated that they
wo~ld favor Alternate No. C. He advised that Alternate No. B would affect homes
and would destroy some property on the northern end Of the align~ent. He reiter-
a~d that many studies were conducted and the three exhibited appear to be the
most logical. He explained that Alternate No. C was drawn up with the objective
of atte~ptin$ to locate the roadway as near the Nicolas-Del Giorgio property line
on the southern end as is feasible and practical, but that the road has to con-
nect at Canyon Rim Road at a fixed point.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (2:45 P.M.)
Councilmen Sneegas and Thom both voiced the opinion that a curve more
closely following the Nicolas-Del Giorgio boundary lines, although not exactly
on the line, wOuld provide an alignment with less curve than shown on Alternate
No. C.
74-1042
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ ,1:30 P,M.
Councilman Sneegas conferred with Mr. Devitt at the posted exhibits.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chambers. (2:50 P.M.)
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council.
Mr. Maynard Reynolds, owner of property which would be affected by the
alignment of Fairmont Boulevard, stated that Alignment No. C asit is:proposed
would traverse the middle of his property and would cause a severance which would
adversely affect its sales potential. Further, with Alternate No. C he would be
required to dedicate 2.4 acres which constitutes 25% of his property. He advised
he was of the same opinion as Mr. Nicolas and his Attorney, that the curvature of
the proposed road could be adjusted to ease his situation and that of Hr. Nicolas.
He stated that under the present conditions, he has decided to defer any dedica-
tion of that portion of his property.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council regarding
the Fairmont Boulevard alignment; there being no response, he declared the hear-
ing closed.
Councilman Sneegas inquired of Mr. Bevins whether his Client would be
willing to dedicate the necessary property if it were possible to locate the
roadway closer to the boundary line so as not to sever the property, and Mr.
Bevins replied that his Client would have to see the plans and be notified of
what the total amount of property involved would be prior to making a final
determination. Mr. Bevins did indicate that if the dedication requirement were
somewhere in the vicinity of one acre or less, with the City responsible for full
street improvements, this might be considered reasonable.
Further discussion was held as to whether or not the alignment as shown
in Alternate No. C could be moved to the north and east to more closely conform
to the Nicolas-Del Giorgio property lines and Mr. Devitt, using the 1,O00-foot
radius template demonstrated that in his opinion this would affect not only the
Del Giorgio property but also some of the properties on the northerly end toward
Santa Ana Canyon Road. He noted that Alignment No. C was proposed in 'order to
allow access from both sides of the right-of-way for the property owners in that'
northern portion.
Mayor Thom took exception to this, noting that as was illustrated on
the Planning Division proposal in May, 1973, and again on Mr. King's work study,
there are alternate alignments which would not cause the severance of Mr. Nicolas'
property which Alternate No. C proposes. He stated that he was trying to make
the point that he could not in good conscience see why it is not possible to
shift the alignment and remarked that he felt the alignment was proposed in this
manner to accommodate the potential development of the Del Giorgio property only.
During further discussion, Mr. King was requested to place his work
sheet over the various Alternate Nos. A, B and C, for comparison purposes. The
Council consensus was that it would appear to them feasible to design a road
similar to that shown on Mr. King's work sheet for the segment which traverses
the Del Giorgio-Nicolas property and then combine with the alignment as shown on
Alternate No. C for the northerly section of the road.
Mr. King advised that he had not studied the effect of his proposed
alignment on properties other than Mr. Nicolas' holdings.
Mr. Harding reported, in reply to Council question, that it would be
standard procedure to request dedication upon the development of Hr~ Nicolas'
property, however, in the event that this did not occur, the City wouldattempt
to purchase the center 24 feet only and then the property owner would be responsi-
ble to construct the remainder of the road at such time as the property may
develop.
Hr. Maddox advised that right-of-way acquisition for this portion of
Fairmont Boulevard is scheduled this year and funds will be requested in December
under the A.H.F.P. program for the proposed construction of the roadway during
Fiscal Year 1975-76.
74-1043
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ !974t 1:30 P.M.
At the conclusion of discussion and de~onstrations of the alternate
al~sn~ent possibilities, the Council indicated that although they did not wish to
delay the consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1490, Variance No. 2630 and
Tentative Tract No. 8560, Revision No. 3, which is contingent upon the road
alignment, any longer than necessary, neither did they wish to take an action at
this time which would sever Mr. Nicolas' property as shown on Alternate No. C or
adversely affect other property owners until they have further information regard-
in~ the cost and feasibility within the A.H.F.P. criteria of alignlng the road to
more closely conform with the property boundaries in the southern sector.
Councilman Sneegas requested that investigation be made as to what
other properties would be affected and what this adjustment would do to the
elevation of the road.
Councilman Sneegas also requested some input on this matter from the
firm proposing the development on the Del Giorgio property.
P~LIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1490 AND VARIANCg ~0. 2630 (ENVIRON-
N~TAL INPACT REPORT NO. 120 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8560~ REV!.S!C~ ~0.. 3): Sub-
mt~te~ by Henry F. and Ethel C. Del Giorgio to construct an 85-1ot R-It-22,O00
subdivision and model home complex on property located south of Santa Ann Canyon
Road, east of Imperial Highway.
Hr. Thomas H. Baldikoski, 1101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, Attorney
representing the McCarthy Company, stated that the reason they have remained
silent on the Fairmont Boulevard alignment issue was that they felt this was not
their concern, that they have attempted to live with whatever the City's decision
would be because of the benefits of that street to the general citizenry, despite
the fact that this may jeopardize and seriously restrict their project. He
stated that their preference of the alternates is No. B. He advised that they
have redesigned their tract maps several times in order to comply with the var-
ious alignments proposed.
. Mr. Baldikoski further advised that discussions had been conducted with
the adjacent property owner relating to the purchase of residual property which
might result from the alignment of Fairmont Boulevard but that he was not inter-
ested in selling that property on the same terms as the McCarthy Company was able
to acquire the majority of the property for their project.
Council discussion was held relative to the length of continuance
necessary to allow the City Engineering staff time to investigate the mechanics
and costs of the alternate alignment and it was determined that the public hearing
on Conditional Use Permit No. 1490 and variance No. 2630 should also be continued
to be considered together with the general alignment of Fairmont Boulevard.
The Mayor recognized Mrs. Mitzy Ozaki, 1122 Timken Road, who requested,
inasmuch as there were homeowners who made special efforts to attend this meeting
because of their concern relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 1490 and Variance
No. 2630, that these people be permitted a show of hands. The Mayor called for a
show of hands of those present to indicate their opposition to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1490, Variance No. 2630 and Tentative Tract No. 8560, Revision No. 3,
and almost the entire audience in the Council Chambers was recognized as in
opposition to these matters. Further, Mrs. Ozaki requested that any continuance
of these public hearings be scheduled at an evening meeting for the convenience
of the property owners who wished to attend.
Councilman Seymour then moved t~ continue decision on the general
all~nment of Fairmont Boulevard between Santa Ams Canyon Road and Canyon Rim Road
mag public hearings on Conditional Use Permit No. 1490 and Variance No. 2630
to~ether with supplement to Environmental Impact Report No. 120 and Tentative
Tract No. 8560, Revision No. 3 to November 19, 1974, 7:30 ?.M., without further
notice, and additionally remarked that it is a total disgrace that the alignment
of Fairmont Boulevard has been under consideration for close to one year and
while it appears there is an alternative which would accomplish Hr. Nicolas'
objectives throushwhat may be a minor adjustment on the map, and this has not
been analyzed as an alternative. Councilman Thom seconded the motion and concurred
with the remarks made by Councilman Seymour. MOTION CARRIgD.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the outcome of any negotiations for
purchase of the island of property which may be caused by Alignment No. C also be
reported at the time this matter is again considered on November 19, 1974.
74-1044
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29, 1974, !:30 P.M.
PUBLIC ,HEARI~ - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-13: Application initiated by the City Plan-
ning Comstission for a change in zone from County of Orange 100-E4-20,000 to City
of AnaheimR-A on property located southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and M~hler Drive, north of the Mohler Drive loop road (Hohler Drive
No. 3 A~exation).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-198,
reported that the Director of Development Services has'determined that the pro-
posed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the
City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environmental impact report
and is categorically exempt from the requirement to file an E.I.R. The City
Planning Commission pursuant to said resolution further recommended approval of
Reclassification No. 74-75-13 subject to the following condition:
1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject~ to com-
pletion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the City Council relative
to Reclassification No. 74-75-13; there being no response, he declared the hear-
lng closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL .IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICALEXEM~TION: On motion byCouncilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the deter-
mination of the Director of Development Services that the activity falls within
the definition 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 said environmental impact report. M~TION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-523: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-523 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
.zone as requested, subject to the condition recommended by the CityPlanning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANA~EIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHODLD BE.AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-13 - R-A)
Rmll Call Vote:
.AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEHBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-523 duly passed and adoPted.
PUBLIC ~~ - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-14: Application initiated by the City Plan-
ning Commiasion for a change in zone from County of Orange 100-g&-20,0OO:to City
of AnaheimR-H-22,000 on property located southeasterly of Santa Ana Canyon Road,
north of Mohler Drive (Mohler Drive No. 3 Annexation), was submitted together
with application for Negative Declaration Status from the requirement to prepare
an environmental impact report.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-199,
recommended that subject reclassification be declared exempt from the requirement
to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the'provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and further recon~ended that ReclaSsification
No. 74-75-14 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That a preliminary title report shall be furnished prior to the
adoption of the ordinance rezoning the property, showing legal vesting of title,
legal description, and containing a map of the property.
2. That dedication shall be made to the City of Anaheim of all streets
within the area, according to the Circulation Element of General Plan, Highway
Rights-of-Way, prior to the adoption of the ordinance rezoning the property.
74 -1045
City Hall~ Ana__~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
3. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim such as
curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities-or
ot~er appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer
amd in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of
the City Engineer, at the time the property is developed.
4. That the owners of subject property shall install street lighting
on all streets within the area as required by the Director of Public Utilities at
the time the property is developed.
5. That electrical utilities shall be placed uadergrgund and dedicated
to the City of Anaheim in accordance with the requirements of the Director of
Public Utilities.
6. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient
grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be
permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drain-
age facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall
be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to
October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be
dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated conde~ation
proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior
to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities
shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from
higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the
City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction
and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the down-
stream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the
issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage dis-
trict reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said
property upon their request.
7. That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as each
parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel, provided,
however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing ~arcels of record
amd any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council for a lot split.
8. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the City Council relative
to Reclassification No. 74-75-14; there being no response, he declared the hear-
i~g closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council finds and.determines
that this reclassification will have no significant effect on the environs~nt and
is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report. MOTION CARRIED.
R~OLUTION NO. 74R-524: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-524 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Co~tssion.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A R~SOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF T~g CITY OF ANAItEIMFINDINGAND DETERMINING
TRAT TITLE 18 OF TH~ ANA~EIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND TMAT TME BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-14 -
R-H-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMB~: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-524 duly passed and adopted.
74-1046
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~.1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC ~RIN~ - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-11: Application by Roy M. Sharp for a
change in zone from R-A to R-3 on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, south of Ball
Road, further described as 1235 South Magnolia Avenue, was submitted together
with application for Exemption Declaration Status from the requirementtO prepare
an environmental impact report.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-196
recommended that subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and further recommended Reclassification No. 74-75-11 be
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the 'City of
Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along
Magnolia Avenue for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along
Magnolia Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of
all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as' required
by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications .on
file in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along
Magnolia Avenue shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of
the Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satis-
factory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the
installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Magnolia Avenue for tree planting
purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to com~nce-
merit of structural framing.
6. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground'utilities.
8. That a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south
property line.
9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
10. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose
of sale, lease or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division~of sub-
Ject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then
be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
11. That the owner(s) of subject propertY shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined .to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at thetimm the building
permit is issued.
12. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director
of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
13. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions
or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the
date hereof, or such further time as the City Council maygrant.
14. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be .
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the location and surrounding zoning
and land uses and explained that the owner of subject 0.34-acre parcel ori$inally
owned a larger 6-acre parcel which was split and the westerly portion inclUded 'in
Reclassification No. 73-74-51, which reclassified that property to the R-3 ..
Zone, leaving subject property which is in the R-A Zone as a substandard R-A
lot. It was consequently suggested by staff that the Petitioner requestR-3
zoning on this portion as well, bringing it into conformity with surrounding
zoning, even though he presently has no plans for development, in order to-obviate
the necessity for a variance procedure.
74-1047
Ci.~.~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974t.' 1:30 P.M.
Councilwomen Kaywood stated that Mr. Perera of the Hontessori School
located on the parcel adjacent and to the south has asked that the 6-foot wall
required as Condition of Approval No. 8 in City Planning Commission Resolution
No. PC74-196,. be increased to an 8-foot wall, since he has a problem with chil-
dren climbing over his existing 6-foot fence.
Deputy City Attorney Lowry advised that a maximum fence height of'6
feet is permitted under Title 18 and a variance would be required to be processed
for any fence over this height. Mr. Lowry stated that if it is Council's desire,
an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code permitting up to an 8-foot
wall without variance could be drafted for adoption by the City Council.
Council discussion regarding the requirement for an 8-foot wall versus
a 6-foot wall was held, and it was the consensus of opinion that the question of
a 6- or 8-foot wall at this time is somewhat redundant inasmuch as the Applicant
has no development plans at present.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the City Council relative
to Reclassification No. 74-75-11; there being no response, he declared the hear-
ins closed. .
~IRONHENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council~an
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds and determines
that subject project will have no significant effect on the environ~ent and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ~ental impact report.
MOTION CARRIED.
.R~..LUTION NO. 74R-525: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-525 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, chan~ing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Comission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAItEIM FINDING AN~ D~ING
THAT TITLE 18 OF T~E ANAHELMHUNICIPAL CODE Rm'~ATING TO ZONING SROULD BE AHENDED
AN~ T~AT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-11 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL M~M~ERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
None
Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-525 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Sneegas left the Council Chambers. (3:50
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City Council instruct staff to pre-
pare an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code permitting maximum
wall height up to 8 feet without variance in residential zones, where it is felt
by the City Council 'to be warranted. Councilmen Thom seconded themotion.
(Councilman Sneegas temporarily absent.) MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC .REAitlNG - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-12: Application initiated by the City
Plmming Co~mission for a change in zone from County of Orange R-1 to City of
An~heimR-A on property located on the south side of Crescent Avenue, east of
Dale Avenue (Coronado-Crescent Annexation).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-197
reported that the Director of Development Services has determined that the pro-
posed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of th~ City
of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environmental impact report and
is categorically exempt from the requirement to file an E.I.R. Further pursuant
to Resolution No. PC74-197, the City Planning Co~ission recommended approval of
Reclassification No. 74-75-12, subject to the following condition:
74-1048
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 197.4~ 1:30 P.M.
1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to the
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council relative to
Reclassification No. 74-75-12; there being no response, he declared the hearing
closed.
ENVIRO.NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood the City Council ratified the detemina-
tion of the Director of Development Services 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, categori-
cally exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact report.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-526:. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-526 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the condition recommended by the City Planning
Comission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHRIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAMEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT T~E BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE C~ANGED. (74-75-12'- R-A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, seymour and Thom
None
Sneegas
Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-526 duly passed and adopted.
APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC DANCE~ FIREWORKS DISPLAY: The following applications wmre
approved as recommended by the Chief of Police and Fire Marshal, respectively, on
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour.:
a. Application for Public Dance Permit filed by Jose Z. OJeda, for a
dance to be held by Sociedad Progresista Mexicans, Inc., Lodge No. 14 on November
24, 1974, 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont AvenUe,
subject to provisions of Chapters 3.28 and 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and
final arrangements to be made with the Police Department.
b. Application by R. Bob Souza, General Manager, California Fireworks
Display Company for permit to display public fireworks at La Palms Park, Glover
Stadium, November 8, 1974, from 8:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M., sponsored by Magnolia
High School A. S. B.
~OTION CARRIED.
Councilman Sneegas returned to Council Chambers. (3:55 P.M.)
CONTINUgD REQUEST - FORTUNE TELLING IN TME CITY OF ANAHEIM: Request from Boris J.
Baranowski, Attorney representing George Williams to discuss the constitutionality
of Section 4.40.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, prohibiting fortune telling in
the City of Anaheim, was continued to this date from the meeting of Sepember 17,
1974, for preparation of supplementary reports by the City-Attorney and Police
Department.
Assistant City Attorney Bill Hopkins submitted memorandum supplementary
to the original opinion dated October 18, 1974, which recommends:
a. That action on the proposed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code,
Chapter 4.40 be held in abeyance pending a decision of the Orange County Superior
Court in Case No. 216810, Steve Adams versus the City of Santa Aha, et al.
74-1049
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29.~. ~9~4., ~.:30 .p.M.
b. If the City Council desires to take some action at this time on the
fortune telling ordinance, it is recommended that Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter
4.40 be amended to add a Section 4.40.060, as proposed within subject memorandum,
exempting religious or spiritual functions from theprovisions of Chapter 4.40.
Mr. Boris J. Baranowski advised that he wished to direct some co~ents
to the reports submitted by the City Attorney's Office, and point out what he
re~ards are significant omissions. He related that in the City .of Woodland case,
referred to in the City Attorney's Office memorandum, Mr. Hopkins advised that a
SUl~erior Court Judge struck down the license tax on the grounds it was void and
unconstitutional by virtue of its being an exorbitant rate. He remarked that the
City Attorney's Office neglected to mention in this memorandum that the City of
Woodland's business license fee was $1,000 per week, or $52,000 per year, whereas,
the license fee he (Mr. Baranowski) had recommended for the City of Anaheim was
$400 to $500 per year.
Mr. Baranowski contended that inasmuch as the City Council Mes~ers have
taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United S~ates and State of
California, it is their responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of this
section of the Code and should not wait for the Courts to decide the matter as
recommended.
Further Mr. Baranowski related that in every trial in which he was
involved, the particular amendment recommended for inclusion in the Anaheim
Municipal Code as set forth in the City Attorney's memorandum of October
1974, which purports to exempt religious or spiritual functions from the provi-
sions of Chapter 4.40 of the AnaheimMunicipal Code, has been declared unconstitu-
tional. In particular, he advised that this very same amendment was a part of
the Menlo Park Ordinance which was ruled unconstitutional.
Mr. Baranowski briefed the status of current litigation in the Courts
relative to fortune telling and read from the finding made in the Allinger versus
the City of Los Angeles case relative to the practice of fortune telling in
accordance with one's religious beliefs and accepting a fee for same. He advised
that it is not contrary to the religious beliefs of the Ro~any Gypsies to accept
a fee for the practice of fortune telling but rather they believe that if they do
not accept a fee the fortune will turn out badly. He asserted that to prohibit
Gypsies from the practice of fortune telling would be analogous to telling
Catholics they could not attend Mass, etc.
In conclusion, Mr. Baranowski advised that the people whom he represents
are honest, and they do wish to be licensed to conduct this activity within the
City of Anaheim. He suggested that they could organize themselves into a church
and apply for a tax exemption, however they did not think it honest to proceed in
this manner and would prefer to obtain a license. He stated that they considered
this is part of the expense for residing in the community.
Mr.'Baranowski introduced Dr. Marlene DeRios, who holds a Ph.D. in
anthropology, University of California at Riverside, to present anthropological
evidence of the fact that fortune telling is a part of the religion as practiced
by the Romany Gypsies.
Dr. DeRios advised-that she is currently esaployed at the Department of
Psychiatry and Human Behavior, California School of Medicine, University of
California at Irvine and that her field of expertise is the anthropology of
religion. She has done research in the methods which man uses to organize his
social groups and belief systems. She stated she had first-hand knowledge of
fortune telling, having practiced same during her apprenticeship in the Amszon '
region of Peru, using fortune telling techniques extant for hundreds of years, and
in particular divination. She related that divination is amore general term
used for a variety of techniques people use all over the world to foretell the
future. During the course of her research she became familiar with the history
and culture of the Romany Gypsies and their fortune tellin~ activities, and these
are an integral part of their religious beliefs in her professional opinion.
Dr. DeRios advised that since divination is a cultural universal found
in all major and minor religions of the world, if one wishes to be honest in up-
holding the First Amendment rights, then if divination is part of the religious
74-1050
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
system, one should be permitted to engage in same. Dr. DeRios further related
that an ~mportant part of the divination phenomena throughout the world deals
with recompense of the individual who is believed to have access to the super'
natural; that it is clear in the literature that if a fee for service is not
accepted, one is not behaving according to the accepted norm.
Mr. Hopkins stated in rebuttal to Mr. Baranowski's comments that the
$400 to $500 fees proposed as a business license tax for fortune telling would be
higher than other business license fees in the City of Anaheim and as such, in
principle, would be considered discriminatory against that particular profession
by the Courts and therefore unconstitutional. Likewise, the suggested require-
ment for fingerprinting and photographing of individuals who would be licensed to
practice fortune telling, could also be considered discriminatory since indi-
viduals in other occupations are not required to do so. The recommendation that
religious freedom be protected by the addition of the proposed exemption section
is based on the fact that it is only the telling of fortunes for a consideration
which is being prohibited, and it is recommended that any final action on this
matter be postponed until some guidance from the Courts is available. He related
that because of the increased activity in litigation directed against Orange
County cities relative to this matter, the Orange County City Attorneys' Associa-
tion is working on some recommendations as well.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Baranowski advised that he finds'
the wording of the proposed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code by adding
proposed Section 4.40.060 (as set forth in memorandum from the City Attorney's
Office dated October 18, 1974, on file in the Office of ihs City Clerk) to be too
broad in that there are no guidelines to determine what is a 'bona fide'' church.
Mayor Thom recognized Mr. Arthur Orsinelli and left the Council Chambers.
(4:18 P.M.)
Mr. Orsinelli advised that he is neither anthrOpologist nor lawyer, but
a citizen who has been collecting names on a petition which alleges that there is
a ~ovement to legalize fortune telling and palmistry in the Orange County com-
munity, initiated by a syndicate. The petition, however, is not complete and was
not submitted, but Mr. Orsinelli indicated that a segment of the population who
are honest, working Gypsies are opposed to the legalization of palmistry and for-
tune telling in the City of Anaheim because history illustrates these activities
to be a detriment to the community. Mr. Orsinelli contended that the Gypsies he
knows are primarily of the Greek Orthodox Religion and that to allow Gypsies to
claim that fortune telling for a fee is a part of their religious practice is
tantamount to his organizing prostitution and requesting a license from the City,
proclaiming this to be a part of their religious practice.
In reply to Council questions, Mr. Orsinelli advised that he is a resi-
dent of Garden Grove, and up until six weeks ago was employed in the City of
Anaheim, and that he was not aware of whether the people circulating the petition
practiced fortune telling. His concern in the matter was motivated because he
did not wish to see a precedent established in the coa~unity. He further related
his personal experiences in various parts of the United States with the dishonest
practices employed by some Gypsies which are disruptive to the com~unity. He
also noted that he was aware that many Gypsies were gainfully employed and that
there were also honest Gypsies who practice fortune telling, however, he noted it
is very difficult to tell them apart.
Mayor Thom returned to the Council Chambers. (4.~20 P.M.)
Mr. Bill Hopkins related that the exemption proposed for addition to the
Anaheim Nunicipal Code is taken from a Los Angeles Ordinance, No. 43.31. It is
widely used throughout the State and considered a fairly common exemption-state-
ment. He noted that although the ruling of the Court in San Mates is that'it is
unconstitutional, this has not been tested in Orange County.
74-1051
City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that since the Steve Adams versus the City
of Santa Ana Case is scheduled for trial on November 4, 1974, it would be no
hardship to wait an additional two weeks to learn what the Court's decision will
be. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to continue this request and any
action on the proposed amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code to the meeting of
November 12,' 1974. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, Mr. Robert Hopson, Attorney
representing Steve Adams, was recognized and advised that the Adams Case will
not address the issues of abridgement of First Amendment Religious Freedoms,
which Mr. Baranowski has raised.
Hr. Baranowski informed the Council of trial dates for suits being
brought by him against various cities and in particular advised that a trial is
set for October 30, 1974, 9:00 a.m. in a case which does address the Religious
Freedoms Issue, in Oakland.
Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that there is no validity in
postponing Council's decision in this matter pending the ruling made by a Court,
that he feels the real question, regardless of the opinion handed down by the
Courts, is whether or not this City Council feels in their opinion it is 'to the
benefit of the City of Anaheim and its citizens to be availed of fortune telling
in the City.
Mayor Thom advised that he, as a Council Member, is represented by the
City Attorney and must take his recomendations into strong consideration. He
further noted he would not want to take any action which might be capricious or
place the City in Jeopardy.
Mr. Baranowski advised that he would be willing to return in two weeks
and apprise Council of the Court's ruling.
In view of the fact that he will not be able to attend the Noves~er 12,
1974 Council Meeting, Councilman Seymour disclosed that he would like to go on
record at this time as agreeing with the premise and logic of the Case as set
forth by Mr. Baranowski. However on the other hand, when laws are written
usually the people who pay the price are the vast majority of good, honest
citizens. In this instance he noted it appears that communities have had bad
experiences and feel it necessary to protect themselves from same. The price
for this is paid for by that segment of honest Gypsies. However, he would still
be inclined to favor an ordinance for the greatest degree possible of protection
a~inst the fear which exists, unless Mr. Baranowski can come up with so~e
alternative which would insure the citizenry to some degree as to which fortune
teller is the crook and which is the honest one.
Councilman Sneegas commented that he sees a conflict between what is a
constitutional right when it comes to religious freedom. Noting the contemporary
rise in popularity of occult forms of religion which goes to the extreme of
practicing h,,~n sacrifice as part of their religious beliefs, he inquired
whether this means homicide should be legalized as a religious act. He stated
that he cannot accept the premise that the practice of fortune telling is a
religious act and consequently constitutes grounds to legalize same, and that he
would not take the responsibility of accepting this as a religious rite. He
related that there is no way of distinguishing what an individual's true spiritual
motivation is and since the records show there has been sufficient, unfortunate
experience with dishonest, fraudulent activities being perpetrated under the
guise of fortune telling, the public should be protected.
Mayor Thom Called for a vote on the foregoing motion to continue
consideration of this request to November 12, 1974. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF LICENSE/APPLICATION FEE - ORANGE COAST CKAPTER~ ORDER OF DEMOLAY: On
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour the request for
waiver of the $25 application/license fee for a public dance to be held by the
Orange Coast Chapter, Order of. Demolay at the Anaheim Plaza December 22, 1974,
sub~itted by Jay Jeanes, Master Councilor was granted. ~0TION CARRIED.
74-1052
City Hall~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ !:30 P.M.
REQUEST - EXTENSION OF TIME, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70-25~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7137
(REVISIO~ NO. 5~ AND FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 7666: Request of Mr.' Terry L. Crowther,
Project Nanager, Pacesetter Homes, Inc., dated September 27, 1974, for extension
of time to Reclassification No. 69-70-25 as it pertains to Tentative Map, Tract~
No. 7137, and Final Map, Tract No. 7666, was submitted together with reports from
the Development Services Department and City Engineer.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts advised that the original resolution of
intent was granted February 9, 1971, to 90 acres of property located between the
Santa Ana River and Esperanza Road, east of Imperial Highway, of which this
parcel was a part. One previous retroactive extension of time was granted this
reclassification, which expired February 9, 1974. This particular parcel was
divided into four tract maps, two of which have been reCOrded (Tract Nos. 7449
and 7450). Tract No. 7137 was originally approved by the Council on May 4, 1971
and subsequently two time extensions granted, the last of which will expire
December 7, 1974. Final Map, Tract No. 7666, was approved in Nay, 1974 and will
expire in May of 1975, if not recorded.
Mr. Roberts further reported that E.I.R. No. 64 was submitted in con-
junction with Tract Nos. 7137 and 7666 and was adopted as the Council's statement
in December of 1972, which was prior to the adoption of current City and State'
Guidelines for preparation of an environmental impact report. Staff has reviewed
this environmental impact report once again and the opinion of the E.I.R. Review
Committee is that E.I.R. No. 64 is inadequate in several respects, due.to the
fact that it was prepared in accordance with the Interim Guidelines. Consequently,
staff recommends that if Council does feel the extension 'of time should be granted,
that this be withheld until a supplement or amended E.I.R. is filed and certified.
Mr. Roberts noted that the granting of an extension of time is a discretionary
and not ministerial act and it would therefore be to the City's benefit to have
the up-dated E.I.R. information.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Roberts explained that'this prOp-
erty is surrounded as follows: The Santa Fe Railroad to the north; Fairmont '
Boulevard to the west, La Palma Avenue to the south; vacant property which is
also under resolution of intent to RS-5000 to the east.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Roberts advised that there is a
maximum time period over which tract maps may be extended and this period will
expire for Tract No. 7137 on December 7, 1974. However the resolution of intent.
may be extended as long as Council desires.
Mayor Thom commented that inasmuch as he did not agree with this
particular zoning at the time it was implemented, he did not feel further, exten-
sion of time to be warranted.
Mr. Terry Crowther, representing Pacesetter Homes,' Inc., 4540 Campus
Drive, Newport Beach, emphasized that the only reason that this tract map is not
recorded and construction underway was because of their desire towork coopera-
tively with the Placentia Unified School District to arrange for a school site.
On ascertaining'that this particular proposed tract is located north of
the Santa Ann River in an area designated on the General Plan as low-medium den-
sity, Councilman Seymour stated he would be inclined to grant the requested
extension of time, subject to up-dating of the E.I.R.
Hrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz Street, was recognized by the Mayor and
questioned when Pacesetter Homes, Inc., began negotiations with the Placentia
Unified School District, since the period from February 1971 to December 1974
appears to be ample time to have concluded these negotiations, and Hr. Crowther
replied that the negotiations began during the first part of 1974.
Councilman Seymour agreed with Mayor Thom's opinion relative to
RS-5000 zoning as it would apply in this area south of the River and indicated
that a long look should be given to any extensions of time to ES-5000 granted in
that area, however, he was of the opinion that this zoning north of the River is
in confOrmitY with the General Plan, and if this is not what CounCil desires then
the General Plan should be amended to reflect this fact.
74-1053
City Hall~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Crowther advised that they do not
intend to level a hill but that the hill referred to in the approved grading plan
is that slope which would be located adjacent to the Fairmont Boulevard ramp. He
further advised that as his best estimate, under 20% of the lots in the prOposed
project would have 6- to 10-foot front setbacks.
It being ascertained during discussion from Mr. Crowther that he ~ould
be able to deliver the E.I.R. supplementary information within two weeks,
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the request for extension of time to Reclassifica-
tion No. 69-70-25 and Tentative Map, Tract No. 7137, be continued to November 12,
1974, pending submission of an addendum to E.I.R. No. 64. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 74-8E: Submitted by Joseph A. Lloyd, proposing to encroach
upon a portion of an existing public utility easement with a swimming pool, prop-
erty located west'of Dale Avenue, south of Ball Road. Also submitted was report
of the City Engineer recommending approval of subject encroachment permit, subject
to:
1. This encroachment will not exceed the height of 15 feet as measured
perpendicularly from the natural level of the ground.
2. The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company reserves the right to
access to their facilities located in the rear of this property to maintain their
cables (repair and replacement).
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-527: Councilman Sneegas offered' Resolution No. 74R-527 for
adoption, approving Encroachment Permit No. 74-8E, subject to ~heconditions
recommended by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EX~CUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH JOSEPH A. LLOYD AND HAZEL M. LLOYD.
74-8E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-527 duly passed and adopted.
C_tARIFICATION - COUNCIL POLICY NO. 524: Proposed changes to Council Policy No. 524 -
"Criteria for Determination of AppliCable Zoning Regulations (new versus old)"
were submitted for Council consideration.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that inasmuch as changes in regulations are
usually enacted because of some factor which is considered detrimental to the
City, she would like to add the following criterion: '~o. 5 - will it be an
asset or a liability to the City?"
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she felt this necessary so that the
long-term effect on the City is taken into consideration. She did not feel that
the matter of substantial sums of money being expended should ba the determining
factor.
Councilman Seymour suggested that this additional criterion would
require staff to make a fairly broad determination.
Mayor Thom indicated he would be interested in Whether or not all bonds
and fees had been posted and required dedications made since this, to him, is a
good indicator as to whether or not the applicant's delay has been unreasonable
or beyond his control.
During Council discussion, Mr. Roberts pointed out that a significant
part of this Council Policy provides that the City Attorney's Office shall process
no applications for relief after a period of six months from the effective date
of the ordinance establishing the new regulations.
74-1054
City Hall, A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
clarification of Council Policy No. 524 was approved, as proposed, inserting in
Line No. 2, the words "newly enacted" in place of "new reinacted"; and thelast
paragraph, amending Line No. 4 to read "to develop entirely under old re~ulations,
or should develop under new regulations;" and striking the words "that nome"
after provisions in Line No. 6 of the last paragraph. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission. at
their meeting held September 30, 1974, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council informationand consideration:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1468 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Harold
Morrison, Secretary, Forest Lawn Cemetery Association fOr an extension of time
to comply with conditions for the conversion of an existing medical-dental
office complex into a planned unit commercial development on C-1 zoned property
located on the north side of Romneya Drive, west of Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, granted an extension of time
for a period of 120 days to Conditional Use Permit No. 1468, retroactive to
September 10, 1974, and expiring January 10, 1975.
2. TRACT NO. 8466 - RESCISSION OF BOUNDARY CHANGE: The City Planning Commission
rescinded previous action approving a boundary change for Tract No. 8466 inasmuch
as there was no boundary change to said tract. Property is located on the south
side of Canyon Rim Road, north of the Walnut Canyon Reservoir in Anaheim Hills.
COUNCIL ACTION: The foregoing applications (Item Nos. 1 and 2) were reViewedby
the City Council and no further action was taken.
3. TRACT NO. 5162 - FORMALIZATION OF PRIVATE STREET NAMES: Request of residents
in Tract No. 5162, located near the northeast corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst
.Street, for formalization of their existing private street names and thema~e
change of one street from Southampton Drive to Coventry Drive and the reCommenda-
tion that official street signs be installed at the intersection of proposed
Coventry Drive and Ball Road at the property owner's expense, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, recommended that the City
Council approve for naming or renaming the following streets as requested bythe
property owners on said streets:
1. Essex Circle
2. Cornwall Drive
3. York Circle
4. Wellington Circle.
5. Avon Circle
6. Churchill Circle
7. Banbury Circle
8. Liverpool Lame
9. Coventry Drive
(formerly Southampton Drive)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R,528: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-528 for
adoption, approving the formalization of existing private street names and the
na~e change of Southampton Drive to Covgntry Drive as requested by the residents.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING PRIVATE STREET
NAMES, TRACT NO. 5162.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, seYmOur, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-528 duly passed and adopted.
4. NEC. ATIVE DECLARATION STATUS - GRADING PERMIT: Request was made by Tony
Barksdale, Post Office Box 3547, Orange, California, 92665, for a grading
permit for three single-family homes in the Mohler Drive No. 2 Annexation area
(Possum Hollow) and since the property is located within the Scenic Corridor a
Categorical Exemption from the requirement to file an environmental impact
report could not be granted.
74-1055
F
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council finds and determines that this project will have no significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report as recommended by the City Plannin$
Co~mission. MOTION CARRIED.
5.' PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE - NORTHEAST CORNER IMPERIAL HIGHWAY ANDiNOHL
RANCH RO~: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
City Council sustained the finding of the City Planning Co~mission that the
Anaheim General Plan currently indicates an elementary school is projected in
the vicinity of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway, and, therefore, the pro-
posal of the Orange Unified School District would be consistent with the Anaheim
General Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
6. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PROPOSED LAND AcquISITION - NORTHEAST OF
THE JUNCTION OF RIVERDALE AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE FREEWAY: Submitted by
J. W. Williams, Design Division Engineer, Orange County Flood Control District
proposing to acquire an excess parcel of land from the California Department of
Transportation located northeast of the junction of Riverdale Avenue and the
Riverside Freeway to be used as open space in accordance with the Santa Ana
River-Santiago Creek Greenbelt Corridor Plan.
Councilman Sneegas advised that the Greenbelt Coordinator requested
that the Anaheim City Council consider exploring funding possibilities of Joint
development with the County of this parcel as a small neighborhood park, to be
later converted into a rest stop. He indicated that the property has no direct
access other than along the frontage of the overpass.
Brief discussion was held on the subject which indicated that the
Council felt staff may look into the possibilities but stressed that this would
be an interim facility and in addition to Riverdale Park.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council sustained the finding set forth in City Planning Commission Resolution
No. PC74-200, that the proposed sale of subject property is in cOnformance with
the City of Anaheim General Plan and will have no significant effect on the
environment. MOTION CARRIED.
7. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY
AND CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT~ ATWOOD CHANNEL TO YORBA DAM: On motion
by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council sustained
the finding set forth in City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC74-201,
determining that the proposed construction of an underground conduit is in
conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
8. FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 7787 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-5~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 77}: Developer, Wittenburg National Company; tract located north of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Anaheim Hills Road; containing 50 proposed RS-5000
zoned lots.
The City Clerk reported that a petition has been submitted requesting
that the Council postpone final approval of Tract No. 7787 until such time as a
study of the necessity for access to Santa Aha Canyon Road at Access Point No. 9
is initiated and has been completed.
City Engineer James Maddox displayed a composite showing Tract No.
7787 as well as adjacent tract maps which illustrated the circulation systems,
both existing and proposed. He advised that Tract N°. 7787 was one of the three
tentative maps approved on March 28, 1972 (Tentative Tract Nos. 7785 and 7786.
also approved that date) and that this particular tract was granted extensions
of time on May 8, 1973 and April 23, 1974, expiring March 28, 1974 and March 28,
1975 respectively. The Developer is now requesting final approval. Mr. Maddox
advised that the concern of the adjacent residents evolves from the traffic
which is likely to be generated as a result of the development of Tract No.
7787. He referred to the Traffic Engineer's analysis of the final traffic count
for the area, which discloses an overall total of approximately 2,160 vehicle
trips per day. He advised that Camino Cotter, as a secondary collector street,
is 40 feet wide and should accommodate 6,000 cars per day as its capacity limit.
74-1056
City Hall~ An,h_~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ !:30 P.M.
Mr. Maddox related that in order to provide access to Santa Ama Canyon
Road for the Mark III Homes who wished to develop to the south, an additional
access point designated No. 9 (as indicated on map 594-73-3) was added in NaY of
1973. The City Engineer reported that the Final Tract Map No. 7787 submitted by
the Wittenberg National Company is exactly in compliance with the tentative map
as originally approved and that the Engineering Division and the Traffic Engineer
envision no difficulty with the local traffic as the circulation is proposed
and, therefore, he recommends approval of said Final Map.
Councilwoman Kaywood related that she had received a telephone call
regarding this matter advising her that homeowners in this area were told there
was to be an additional access point onto Santa Aha Canyon Road, and instead the
street was developed as a cul-de-sac; that these people are extremely worried
about the potential traffic which will be coming through their tract, especially
in light of the possibility that the City intends to acquire adjacent property
for a park site.
Mrs. Cathy Meyers, 6041 Camino Correr, advised that she represented
homeowners along Camino Correr and Avenida Barca who will be affected by this
traffic. She related that these property owners feel 2,160 cars is a consider-
able amount of traffic for a residential street and fear for the safety of their
children as well as the possible loss of their properties "prime" value as a
result of this increased traffic. She further noted that it would be extremely
difficult to effectively evacuate the area in the event of fire or flood. She
stated that Access Point No. 9 has already been approved and is shown on the map
and they feel this should be implemented. She requested that the Council with-
hold final approval of Tract No. 7787 until the Wittenberg National Company can
comply with the access point as indicated on the original map.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that a knuckle shown on Tentative Tract
Map No. 7787 be extended down to Santa Ana Canyon Road to provide the access
· sought by the area residents, and Mr. Maddox explained that this would not
provide access opposite the Mark III Homes access point and would, therefore.,
create a signalization problem and increase the cost. In addition, he noted
that there is a grade differential of 10 to 12 feet at this point to Santa Aha
Canyon Road which would not allow sufficient space to grade a level, safe,
stopping place.
Mr. Bruce Strickland of Toups Engineering, 1010 North Main Street.,.
Tustin, stated that the original Access Point No. 9 as it was approved by the
City Council, State and County in 1966 was much further to the east. At the
time that Tentative Map of Tract No. 7787 was prepared and approved, the present
access point was not in existence. The revised access point was ~pprov~d in May
of 1973 which is some time after this project had been started, fie advised'.that
after reviewing the situation with the Developer, they both concur with the City
Engineering Division that from an engineering standpoint Camino Cotter would
experieace traffic ·below the normal level for a collector street in a residential
area. On cursory review he advised that the tract would lose four lots by
extending the knuckle down to Santa Ana Canyon Road if the grade were possible
to obtain. In conclusion, he stated that the Wittenberg National Company has
complied with the tentative subdivision map as filed and all obligations set
forth in the conditions of approval thereto, and consequently, as he understands
it, the City Council has the ability at this point to either approve the final
map or find that it is not in substantial conformance with the tentative map
previously submitted and approved.
Mr. Bill Hopkins, Assistant City Attorney, counseled that the Business
and Professions Code indicates that the governing body shall not deny approval
of the final map if it has previously approved the tentative map for th~ proposed '
subdivision and the final map is in substantial compliance with said tentative
map.
Additional discussion and comparison of the map dated May 1973 offered
by Mrs. Meyers with the composite of the Wittenberg tracts and surrounding area
was conducted during which Councilwoman Kaywood inquired why the Mark III h~e
subdivision was granted the relocation of Access Point No. 9. She voiced the
opinion that it did not seem fair to place an access point on the map to accom~o-
date a particular subdivision. ,
74-1057
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Thom reported that according to the Minutes of May 1, 1973, the
City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 125, thereby establishing the
relocation of Access Point No. 9 and establishment of a new Access Point No. 9A.
Councilman Sneegas stressed that Tract No. 7787 was already filed when
subsequently a developer requested the additional access point. He stated that
he did not think that the fact that such access point being granted to the prop-
erty across the road should require that this particular developer should revise
his map, after the fact.
Mr. Murdoch remarked that in discussing this situation with the Traffic
Engineer, he advises that although 2,100 vehicle trips per day is not considered
excessive for a collector street and is typical throughout the City, an addi-
tional access point would be of benefit to the traffic flow and circulation
picture, however, it would require the redesign of Tract No. 7787 to accomplish
this.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that according to the homeowners in
the area, the salesmen for their tract assured them that the additional access
point would be available to Santa Aha Canyon Road. This information would not
be incorrect since it could be corroborated on the map which shows the aCcess
point.
Mr. Maddox reiterated that the Tentative Map was approved in March of
1972 and at that time did not show an access point onto Santa Aha Canyon Road.
Further, he stated that these access points, when so designated, are not manda-
tory, but access is permissible to the developer at such points.
At the request of Councilman Seymour, Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer,
described some other residential areas in the City of Anaheim whichwould carry
a Volume of traffic comparable to what is estimated for. Camino Cotter in the
future (2,100 vehicle trips per day).
Further discussion was held regarding the amount of traffic which
would be exiting and entering these tracts via Camino Cotter and Avenida Barca
and its impact upon the rural atmosphere of the canyon, during which Mrs. Meyers
interjected that many of the homeowners specifically questioned the sales people
and were repeatedly assured that there would be at least one other access point.
She noted that this was a determining factor in many property owners' decisions
on which lots to purchase.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the
City Staff undertake a study to determine the feasibility of providing anaddi-
tional access point from Tract No. 7787 to Santa Aha Canyon Road, based on the
comment by the Traffic Engineer that traffic circulation in the area would be
improved by the addition of such access point.
coUncilman Sneegas stated that he could not Justify the City holding
the Wittenberg National Company responsible for an access point which was estab-
lished after their tentative map was approved. He further commented on the dire
need to generate some construction activity because of the Unemployment situation.
CoUncilman Sneegas thereupon moved that the final map of Tract No. 7787 be
approved, subject to approval of bonds by the City Attorney.
Said motion died for lack of a second.
CoUncilman Seymour seconded the foregoing motion made by Councilwoman
K~ywood. To this motion, Councilman Sneegas voted 'So". MOTION CARRIED.
· Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that Mr. Strickland and representatives
of the Wittenberg National Company meet with the City Staff to complete this
study as soon as possible.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved for a three-minute recess. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:00 P.M.)
AFTER R~CESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all CoUncil Members being pre-
sent, with the exception of Councilmen Seymour and Pebley. (6:03 P.M.)
74-1058
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
OFF-SITE TRACT SIGNS - SANTA ANA CANYON: The Mayor recognized Mrs. Mary Dinndorf,
President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., who submitted a
petition containing approximately 314 signatures of canyon residents requesting
that the City Council adopt a policy whereby the existing eucalyptus trees would
be retained and billboards removed from the Santa Ama Canyon Scenic Corridor,
Mrs. Dinndorf pointed out that the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone,
Section 18.59.021, specifically excludes billboards from those usesconditionally
permitted in said Zone. She requested that the City Attorney give a definition~
of the term "billboards" as intended at the time the Scenic Corridor Overlay
Zone was adopted since, according to the State Department of Highways, billboards
are now called "outdoor advertising displays". In her opinion it would be
necessary for the City Planning staff to revise guidelines for outdoor advertis-
ing displays and set new guidelines for such uses. Additionally, she noted that
the Scenic Highway Element of the Anaheim General Plan as adopted in September
of 1974 prohibits off premise advertising except for approved information panels
and recommends that a maximum five-year amortization period for same should be
considered. She reported on the recommended guidelines for signs being prepared
by the Santa Aha River/ Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commission staff.
In conclusion, Mrs. Dinndorf advised that her Association feels the 24
existing billboards and/or signs along Santa Aha Canyon Road are non-conforming
and do not meet the criteria of temporary off-site tract signs. She requested
on behalf of her Association that the Council consider an ordinance which would
provide criteria for information panels in the Scenic Corridor whichwould
conform to the rustic atmosphere they are trying to retain in the canyon. She
advised that it is not their intent to ban all advertising by developers, but
rather to establish some standards which would allow the type of advertising
which would enhance the area. She voiced the opinion that the removal of the
trees adjacent to Canyon High School and the construction of billboards has made
the intersection of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road a blighted area
which cannot be justified.
As requested by Mrs. Dinndorf, Mr. Hopkins explained that the defini-
tion of a "billboard" as set forth in Section 18.63.020 would be any siS~ which.
is designed for use with changing advertising copy, normally used for the adver-
tisement of goods produced or services rendered at locations other than the'
premises which the sign is located, and which is not otherwise defined ~ithin
Chapter 18.62 as a guide, business or temporary off-site real estate sign.
In answer to Mrs. Dinndorf, Mr. Hopkins related that the term temporary
would m~an that the tract sign could be posted for the duration of the real
estate sales period only, whereas the billboard placed for commercial purposes
would r~main indefinitely, until either the lease ran out or the property was
sold; that there is no time limitation within the Code for a temporary off-site
real estate sign.
In reply to Mrs. Dinndorf's question about size limitations, Mr.
Roberts advised that the maximum size for a billboard is 300 square feet, any-
thing larger would require a conditional use permit. An off-site tract sign may
have maximum dimensions of 10 feet by 25 feet. Further he stated there is no
provision contained in the ordinance' regarding the number of tract signs on any
given parcel.
Mr. Roberts related that staff has received direction from Council to
draft recommendations for amendments to the Code with specific emphasis on the
fact that it was not the Council's intent to eliminate this type of advertising,
but to cOntrol it in a more reasonable manner. He reported further that there
is a provision in the ordinance which states that an off-site tract sig~ is
permitted for one year after which an extension of time would be required to be
granted by the City Council. A review of those existing signs indicates that a
number of these permits have expired their one-year time period, and each of
these developers have been contacted. Consequently requests for extensions of
time have been received for six to eight tract signs and will be presented for
Council consideration shortly.
Mr. William Ehrle, 2211 East Romneya Drive, indicated his comcurr~nce
with comments made by Mrs. Dinndorf. He referred to articles published in the
Anaheim Bulletin, Los Angeles Times and Orange News Times relative to the signs
74-1059
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1,974, 1:30 P,M.
in the Santa Ana Canyon. He referred to the Cities of Placentia and Yorba Linda
which have mede more progress in control of the use of signs and billboards than
the City of Anaheim. He presented the following recommendations for further
consideration by Council and staff:
1. The elimination of all signs and billboards in the Scenic Corridor.
2. The building and use of directional signs as seen in Diamond ~ar
and Irvine.
3. The building of attractive entrance and exit signs for the City of
Anaheim on such streets as Harbor Boulevard and State College
Boulevard.
4. Review of the Placentia ordinance governing political campaign signs
requiring a deposit of $50 to $100 prior to placement of any signs.
Mr. John Millick, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., advised that they
would concur with the opinions presented in terms of gaining more control over
the use of off-site tract signs in the canyon, while keeping in mind that there
is a direct relationship between traffic and home sales. He described efforts
mede by Anaheim Hills, Inc., to work out a consolidation program for advertising.
However, it became obvious that while Anaheim Hills, Inc., could effectively
reduce and remove some of their signs, there would still be no control over the
remeinder of the developers who would quickly lease spaces so vacated for off-
site tract signs of their own.
Mr. Millick advised that Anaheim Hills, Inc., especially in view of
their long-term interests, would be in favor of a consolidation program for
signing. He related that on the Anaheim Hills, Inc., property itself they have
developed some strict requirements and criteria for all types of signs. Me
advised tb~t they would be willing to cooperate with whatever sign regulations
the City proposes, so long as they are reasonable and equitable and provide an
opportunity for each developer to attract people to his project in a menner so
as,not to deter sales. He advised that exposure is critical to the real estate
merket at this time.
Mrs. Sally White, Director of Anaheim Beautiful, 809 West Broadway,
wished to go on record regarding this problem by stating that Anaheim Beautiful
is extremely interested and concerned about anything which detracts from the
beauty of the community.
Mayor Thom thanked all those presenting input and assured them that
staff, as well as Council, will seriously consider their remerks in attempting
to resolve the situation.
R~SOLUTION NO. 74R-529 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 719-B: In accordance with recommenda-
tion of the City Engineer, Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-529 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAflEIMACCEPTING A SEALED PRO-
POSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR TIlE FURNISHING
OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECES-
SARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE TUSTIN
AVENUE-JEFFERSON STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 719-B. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company - $27,684.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-529 duly passed and adopted.
~iOLUTION NOS. 74R-530 THROUGH 74R-533 - FINAL COMPLETIONS: Upon receipt of certifi-
cations from the Director of Public Works, COuncilmen Sneegas offered Resolution
Nos. 74R-530 through 74R-533, both inclusive, for adoption.
74-1060
City Hall~ A,?heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974, .1:30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-530 - WORK ORDER NO. 714-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSpORTA-
TION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY
TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: NOHL RANCH
ROAD-WALNUT CANYON ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 714-A. (National Western Construction Co., Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-531 - WORK ORDER NO. 718-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTA-
TION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY
TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE LOARA
STREET STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, NORTH OF WILSHIRE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NO. 718-A. (Ecco Contractors, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-532 - WORK ORDER NO. 720-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTA-
TION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY
TO .CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE IME FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE INSTALLA-
TION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING ON KNOTT AVENUE SOUTH OF BALL ROAD AT
APOLLO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 720-A. (Resco)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-533 - WORK ORDER NO. 725-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTA-
TION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY
TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE KATELLA
AVENUE-BROOKHURST STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF AItAHE.1H, WOR~ ORDER
NO. 725-A. (McGrew Construction Co., Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES':
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
None
Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-530 through 74R-533, both inclu-
sive, duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-534 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Sneegas offered Resol~tiom'No,
74R-534 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS
'AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Walnut Canyon Mutual Water Co.; Sterling Busi-
ness Complex; Tetsuo Ozaki, et ux.; La Habra Cold Storage, Inc.; Public Storage,
Inc.; St. Michaels Episcopal Church; Wm. Soko FukUda, et ux.; Edward F. Escalle,
et al.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-534 duly passed and adopted.
PROPOSED ABANDONMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 74R-535: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution
No. 74R-535 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
74-1061
F
F
F
City Halls ~aheims California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29s ~974s I:30P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING ~MEREON. (No.
74-6A, public hearing November 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.; existing public utility ease-
ment north of Katella Avenue, west of Walnut Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
None
Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-535 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-536 - PURCHASEt THIRD PHASE PARCELt FORMER BANK OF AMERICA PARKING
LOT: On report and recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Sneegas offered
--Resolution No. 74R-536 for adoption, exercising the City's option to purchase
the third Phase former Bank of America parking lot property (Merchants National
Realty Corporation) for the sum of $100,000.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXERCISING AN OPTION TO
PURCHASE CERTAIN PROPERTY AND ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED THERETO. (MerchantsNational
Realty Corporation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Sneegas. and Thom
None
Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-536 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHAS~,OF EQUIPMENT - EIGHT POLICE MOTORCYCLE UNITS: The City Manager reported on
the recommended purchase of eight police motorcycles and advised that Harley-
Davidson has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $26,152.75,
including tax. He thereupon recommended purchase be authorized.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, purchase
was authorized in the amount of $26,152.75, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASe. OF EQUIPMENT - POLICE RADIOS: The City Manager reported on the recommended
purchase of police radios and related equipment for eight additional police
motorcycle units and advised that Motorola Inc., a sole source vendor, has
submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $6,715.53, including
tax. He thereupon recommended the purchase be authorized.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, purchase
was authorized in the amount of $6,715.53, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
CLAIMS %GA!NST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by the City
Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom:
a. Claim submitted by Florence C. Smith for damages and injuries sus-
tained to self purportedly as a result of uneven and flooded sidewalk at 412
Florette Street, on or about July 5, 1974.
b. Claim submitted by Harry Edwin Schorr for damages, resulting from
emotional stress and mental suffering purportedly as a result.of actions of
Anaheim Police Officers, on or about July 9, 1974.
c. Claim submitted by Fleming & Aronson for property damage sustained
purportedly as a result of electrical failure caused by automobile accident, on
or about September 17, 1974.
d. Claim submitted by Paul S. Sens, Sr., for damages sustained to
property and equipment purportedly as a result of iow voltage supplied by City
of Anaheim, on or about September 21, 1974.
e. Claim submitted by Mrs. Jess Stewart for personal loss sustained
purportedly as a result of mixup by Anaheim City serviceman regarding turnoff
and on of electrical requests, on or about September 30, 1974 and October 1, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
74-1062
Cit7 Hall~ A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29t.1974~ 1:30 P~.
RESOLUTION NO.. 74R-537 - ACCEPTING EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY NO. 1676: Councilwo~an~
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-537 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book. -
I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEN~NT FOR
PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREFOR (RIGHT-OF-WAY NO. 1676).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
None
Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-537 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-538 - LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY (SHORB WELLS): Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-538 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
GRAZING HORSES. (ENLOE AND WARD)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
None
Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-538 daly passed,and ~oPt~.,
~x$OLUTION NO. 74R-539 - EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS~ $OtrfltERN'..C~LI~OR~.IA
COMPANY {CONDI~TION NO. 10~ LEWIS SUBSTATION): Councilwo~an Kaywood offered Resolu-
tio~ No. 74R-539 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER~NI~G
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION, COi~STKUCTXON.AI~D
COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EXTENSION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, CONSISTING OF
ELECTRIC LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER LINES AND WoRKS, IN CERTAIN'PORTIONS OF .THE, CITY
OF ANAHEIM, BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY IN SAID PORTIONS OF SAID CITY. (CONDEMNATION NO. 10 -
LEWIS SUBSTATION)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-539 duly passed and adopted.
CORRESPONDENCe: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sn~egas,
the following correspondence was ordered received and filed, with the ex¢~ptioa
of Item No. e which was adopted as a reference guide:
a. CaliforniW Legislature - Senator James Whetmore - Leagme Of. Califor-
nia Citiss Resolution - Pertaining to local government involv~mt in ~stabliahing
a compr~hensive planning process in meeting air quality standards.
b. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Notice Resetting preheat-
ing conference - Application of Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Western Division) for.
authority to publish automatic labor cost adjustment tariff provision.
c. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Notice of filing of ~nd-
ment to application - Southern California Gas Company for authority to increas~
revenues--to offset the effect of certain increased costs.
74-1063
City M~I1~ A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1':30 P.M.
Service:
Guide.
d. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County Resolution
ee
Westminster Resolution No. 1596
Fullerton Resolution Nos. 5786, 5784
Villa Park Resolution No. 74-367
Newport Beach Resolution No. 8360
Beverly Hills Resolution No. 74-R5145
Huntington Beach Resolution No. 3961
Tustin Resolution No. 74-76
Orange City Resolution Nos. 4033, 4034
AnaheimResolution No. 74R-500
Santa Ann River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commission - Landscape
f. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County - Notice of Meeting,
October 17, 1974.
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County - Minutes - October 3,
1974.
g. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - September 19,
1974.
h. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - September 11, 1974.
i. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - October 9, 1974.
J. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of September, 1974
for the Engineering Division, Water Division, Building Division and the City
Treasurer.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3364: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3364 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-33 (6) - R-A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
None
Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3364 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3365: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3365 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, BY ADDING CHAPTER 14.57,
SECTIONS 14.57.010, 14.57.020 AND 14.57.030, RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL.
ORDINANCE NO. 3366: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3366 .for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (63) - C-R)
ORDINANCE NO. 3367: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3367 for first reading.
ANORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (64) - C-R)
ORDINANCE NO. 3368: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordiannce No. 3368 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-46 (5) - R-A, Tustin-Miraloma No. 4 Annexation)
REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGUI~TING NgWSPAPER RACKS ON PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: By general consent, the City Council determined to hold the report
and discussion of a suggested ordinance governing newspaper racks on public
rights-of-way to the meeting of November 5, 1974, for consideration by a full
Co~ucil and requested that the City Clerk schedule these items for public discus-
sion near the beginning of said Agenda.
74-1064
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1:30 P~.M..
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-540- AGREEMENT~ AMERICAN RED CROSS/LFJlAHAE DWYER.- MAINTENA~.CE
EASEMENTSt MOTHER COLONY HOUSE: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-$40
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF AGREENENTS WITH THE AHERICAN RED CROSS AND LERA MAE DWYER RELATING .TO ~
MOTHER COLONY HOUSE AND EASEMENTS THERETO FOR HAINTENANCE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEHBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-540 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-541 - SUPPORTING IRVINE MEDICAL SYSTEM CONCEPT: C°uncilsmn Thom
offered Resolution No. 74R-541 for adoption,, supporting the Irvine Medical System
Concept and indicating desire of the City of Anaheim that a community clinic
designated as Clinic No. 4 for Irvine Medical System be located within said City.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING THE IRVINE
MEDICAL SYSTEM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-541 duly passed and adoptad.,
BLUE CROSS E_~PLOYEE PREHIUMADJUSTHENT AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS: Mr. Garry McRae,
Personnel Director reported on premium adjustments for the City e~ployee Blue
Cross contract for the forthcoming policy year, which reflect a 22;6I increase
and reco~ended that the following premium structure be approved effective
November 1, 1974 through October 31, 1975:
1. The following rates will apply as deposit rates for the p~riod
November 1, 1974 through October 31, 1975.
Single Employee & One
Employee Dependent
20.79 51.36
F~ploy~e & ~
or MOre Dependents
66.24
2. If incurred claims plus the required administrative cost plus
$10,000 exceeds earned deposit income for the period November 1, 1974 through
October 31, 1975, the City of Anaheim will be liable for a single pay~emt to
Blue Cross in an amount equivalent to such excess subject to the limita~ions
stated in Paragraph Three below. The administrative cost will be 8,8% of the
potential maximum income liability.
3. In no event will the City of Anaheim be liable for additional pay-
ments which exceed the amount of money produced by the following formals:
a. Total number of Single contracts in force each~0nth rims
$2.97.
b. Total number of Employee and One Dependent contract's in force
' each month times $7.34.
c. Total number of Employee and Two or Note Dependent contracts
in force each month times $9.47.
Any additional payments required under the above formula will be
due and payable to Blue Cross within ten days from the. date that you are billed.
74 -1065
City Hall} A--hetm} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29,. 1.974, 1:30 P.M.
4. The following stipulated rates will apply to the B and C suffix
groups for the period November 1, 1974 through October 31, 1975 and will not be
subject to the additional payment provisions of Paragraph 3 above.
B Suffix
Single Employee & One
~mployee Dependent
Employee &
or. More Dependents
23.76 58.70 75.71
C Suffix
Retiree
Retiree and
Dependent
13.00 26.00
Mr. Murdoch noted that this increased Blue Cross premium is in excess
of what was estimated in the Budget and advised that if Council Wished to autho-
rize the new Blue Cross Policy agreement with this new rate structure, it'would
be in order to authorize the transfer of $120,000 from the Unappropriated Balance.
Mayor Thom stated that prior to the time that the Council considers
extending this Blue Cross contract again, he felt it imperative that the City
Council and staff explore the possibilities of self'insurance for these employee
medical benefits. He advised, for the benefit of the press, that it is not pos-
sible for the City to effect any changes in medical coverage during the terms of
agreements with employee and labor organizations.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council approved the Blue Cross premium structure as recommended by the Personnel
Director and set forth above for the period of November 1, 1974 through
October 31, 1975; and further authorized the transfer of $120,000 from the
1974-75 Unappropriated Balance. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
AETNA ENPLOYEE DISABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM RATE ADJUSTMENT AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS:
Mr. Garry McRae, Personnel Director, reported on the recommended premium rate
adjustment for the policy year beginning November 10, 1974 as follows: Temporary
disability coverage, $2.13 per month; Long-term disability coverage, $.84 per
$100 of full monthly payroll.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council approved the premium rates recommended bythe Personnel Director as
set forth above and further authorized transfer of $25,-000 from the 1974-75 Un-
appropriated Balance to cover the estimated increased cost of the policy over
that amount which was budgeted. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
EXCLUSIO~ OF POLICE CADETS FROM PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETI~T SYST~! (PEI~):
Mr. Garry McRae reported that according to the City's contract with PERS which
deletes as exempt from said system the part-time employees, it will be necessary
for the City Council to indicate officially that Police Cadets are designated as
part-time employees to comply with the rules for exemption.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-542: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-542 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
P, ESOLI~ION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AHEND14ENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD'OF
AIMINISTRATION OF T~E PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RATIRgN~qT SYSTEM AND TRE CITY COITNCIL
OF TH~ CITY OF ANAMEIM.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL N~NBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL NgMBERS:
Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
None
Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-542 duly passed and adopted.
74-1066
City Hal.~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
INSURANCE OF FEDERALLY FUNDED EMPLOYEES WITH STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND: Mr.
Garry McRae reported that it has been a concern during the last couple of months
since the City has been self insured for workmen's compensation, as to whether
the City would have the ability to recover catastrophic costs for federally
funded employees. Under the present arrangement, that type of injury experience
would be spread throughout all city experience and not impact specifically on
federally funded positions. It is, therefore, recommended that for workmen's
compensation and long-term disability these specific federally funded.positions
be insured through workmen's compensation by the State Compensation Insurance
Fund. Any benefits forthcoming then would not affect the City's experience rate.
In answer to Council questions Mr. McRae explained that it has not been
clearly spelled out how funds would be recovered in the event of a long-term
disability claim and since the federal government pays for this insurance, it is
felt to be a better arrangement to insure present and future federally funded
employees through the State Compensation Insurance Fund.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
City Council authorized the Personnel Director to complete application for work-
men's co~ensation insurance through the State Compensation InsUrance Fund for 50
federally funded municipal employees for the approximate annual cost of $1800,
'effective November 1, 1974. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE OF P.E.P. AND C.E.T.A. FUNDS: The City Manager reported
that in discussing federally funded programs the City has' entered into several of
these programs and is, in fact, doing some of the employment but it is necessary
that the Council authorize the expenditure of these P.E.P. and C.E.T.A. funds so
that they may be disbursed. He reported that the amounts anticipated would be
$244,900 in P.E.P. funds and $438,312 in C.E.T.A. funds.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
'City Council authorized expenditure of P.E.P. and C.E.T.A. funds in the a~ounts
estimated by the City Manager for municipal employment purposes. Councilmen
Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-543 - JEFFERSON-ORANGETHORPE ANNEXATION (UNINHABITED}.: Pursuant to
authority granted by the Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 74,129,
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-543 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ClTYOF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF ANAMEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED JEFFERSON-
ORANGET~ORPE ANNEXATION. (5 acres uninhabited)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-543 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-544 - AGREEMENT - COUNTY OF O~GEJOINT CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVE-
MENT OF BROO~T STREET (A.H.F.P. NO. 680): Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution
No. 74R-544 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COUNTY OF'
ORANGE ~OR THE IMPROVEMENT OF BROOKHURST STREET BETWEEN LINCOLN AVENUEAND BALL
ROAD UNDER ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 680.
Roll Call Vote:
74-1067
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 29~ 1.974~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-544 duly passed and adopted.
CLARIFICATION OF MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER STUDY CONSULTANT SELECTION: the
City Manager reported that the O.C.T.D. Board of Directors has r~quested further
clarification of the City Council recommendation regarding consultant selection
for the Multi-Modal Transportation Center Study, forwarded pursuant to its action
taken at the meeting of October 1, 1974. At that time the Council indicated that
either Kaiser Engineers or Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall would be able to
complete the study with an equal degree of competence. He noted that during much
of the investigation on the various approaches to the Transportation Center and
tramsportation problems, the City of Anaheim has had extensive opportunities to
work with Daniel,'Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall and they are particularly familiar
with the City of Anaheim transportation problem. He suggested perhaps it would
be well to indicate a preference for said firm even though the City recognizes
and still feels either firm would be equally competent.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council revised their action of October 1, 1974, relative to consultant
selection for the Multi-Modal Transportation Center Study to:
1. Recommend the firm of Daniel, Mamn, Johnson & Mendenhall as the
firm best qualified to complete the Study as outlined by the City of Anaheim and
the Orange County Transit District.
2. Reaffirm its objective of having the study completed "as soon as
possible" in an effort to facilitate the provision of an intra-city (Anaheim)
tramsportation system which will assist the City in its Redevelopment Project."
MOTION CARRIED. Councilmen Seymour and PebleY absent.
ADJOU~: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Monday, November 4, 1974 at
7:00 p.m. in the Management Control Center, 114 South Claudina Street for the
purpose of a Joint work session with the Amaheim City Planning Commission.
Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:05 P.M.
Si~med
City Cler~