1973/11/2773=965
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973, 1:30 P.M~
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRE SENT:
AB SEN T:
PRE SENT:
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley (~rrived 2:10 p.m.), Thom
and Dutton
COUNCILMEN: None
CITY MANAGER: Ketth A. Murdoch
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Fattens
PARK & RECREATION DIRECTOR: John J. Collier
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph O. Pease
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SU?ERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill Young
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Dutton and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"VOICE OF DEMOCRACY WEEK" - December 1-15, 1973
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meetings
held November 6, November 13, and November 20, 1973 and adjourned regular
meeting held November 8, 1973, was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Sneegas 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 Councilmen, unless after reading of
the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount of $1,899,833.03, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1052: Initiated by the City Planning
Com~ission to investigate the necessary evidence relative to uses permitted
under the original conditional use permit application and the uses as they
presently exist on the premises. Said conditional use permit wms ~iginally
granted to allow the establishment of a trucking yard and termima! om M-1
zoned property located on the south side of Santa Ama Street, east side of
Walnut Street, and west side of Manchester Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-219,
amended the original uses allowed under Conditional Use Permit No. 1052, to
permit an automobile impound yard and modified the conditio~l o~ &pproval
which were attached to Resolution No. PC68-229 (granting iaid ¢o~ditfo~al
use permit) to include the followin§ additional conditioml:
1. That a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the
west side of Manchester Avenue for the southerly 236 feet extending fr~m the
existing redwood fence to the southerly property line adjacent to the eximting
seven-foot masonry wall; and that a six-foot masonry wall shall be co~ltructed
along the southerly 230+ feet of the east side of Walnut Street to emclose
the outdoor storage fac~lities of the ~mpo~d ymrd, as stip~la~e~ ~o hy the
petitioner.
13-966
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
2. That there shall be no stacking of vehicles above the six-foot
height of the wall as stipulated to by the petitioner.
3. That landscaping shall be provided in conformance with the site
development standards of the M-1 Zone.
Appeal from certain conditions imposed by the City Planning Con~tssion
were filed by Mr. Milton E. Johnson, owner of the property, and public hearing
scheduled this date.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts described the location of subject property
and indicated that consideration of this matter by the Planning Co~m~ission
came about as a result of a change in the use on a portion of the property.
He related events which have transpired in connection with Conditional Use Per-
mit No. 1052 as follows:
1. The conditional use permit was originally approved in the latter
part of 1968 to permit the northerly portion of the property to be used as an
auto-impound and repair facility and the southerly portion (which is the prop-
erty under discussion) was at that time intended for use as a trucking yard and
terminal with related auto and truck overhauling and storage, as well as related
mechanical and auto body-fender repair.
At that time the Planning Commission approved the request to establish
a trucking yard and terminal with related auto and truck overhauling and repair
facilities. The two waivers requested on the original conditional use permit
application were from masonry walls to separate this use from the R-1 property
to the south and from the required enclosure of outdoor uses, which would pertain
to the Walnut and Manchester frontages. The applicant withdrew the request for
waiver from the masonry wall and the remaining waiver (i.e., required enclosure
of outdoor uses) was granted.
2. Some time prior to June of this year, Mr. Johnson discussed with
the Development Services Department the possibility of expanding the auto and
truck repair facility, which use exists on the northerly portion of the property,
since the lessee of the southern portion of the property, the trucking terminal
with related activities, was moving to another location. The Development Services
Staff indicated to the petitioner that the proposal, as presented, would represent
an expansion of the existing impounding and towing operation which was not speci-
fically approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1052. Mr. Johnson disagreed
and presented his proposal to a representative of the City Attorney's Office who
then rendered the opinion, based upon Mr. Johnson's presentation, that the pro-
posed expansion would fall within the confines of the use originally granted,
i.e., a trucking terminal.
3. Subsequent to this, upon witnessing a change in the business acti-
vities upon the property, the Planning Con~nission felt the matter should be
pursued further and public hearings were held. At the conclusion of these,
the Planning C~mnission adopted Resolution No. PC73-219 which set forth certain
findings relative to the situation and these were read in full by Mr. Roberts
from the Planning Commission resolution. Finding No. 4 stated that the appli-
cant did stipulate to construction of a six-foot masonry wall along the entire
frontage of Walnut Street, where no structures existed, to the seven-foot masonry
wal] on Santa Ana Street.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent were present and wished
~ to address the Council.
Mr. Stephen Gallagher, Attorney for Mr. Milton E. Johnson, remarked
that to his recollection, the applicant had not stipulated to construction of
a six-foot masonry wall as set forth in Finding No. 4 of Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC73-219, and advised that if the stipulation had been made, it
was withdrawn. Mr. Gallagher noted that the only problem resulting from the
requested use which must be resolved is that of screening, that there is no
noise problem.
Mr. Gallagher submitted a letter from Mrs. Esther M. Beinke, President
of the W & W. Towing Company, which outlined the company's procedures for handling
inpounded~ stored and wrecked vehicles, together with a parcel map and several
73-967
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
photographs showing the current status of the property from various angles.
(Photographs were reviewed by Council and submitted as evidence.)
Mr. Gallagher advised, as he noted was also indicated in the letter,
the W & W Towing Company provides impounding facilities utilized by the Anaheim
Police Department and California Highway Patrol, and that no dismantling
occurs on the property. Ihe vehicles remain impounded awaiting disposition,
and no auto wrecking occurs on any portion of the property, merely the wheels
and tires are removed and occasionally a motor is removed. The cars are
trucked away and dismantled at another location.
Mr. Gallagher utilized the photographs submitted to illustrate:
that the easterly property line currently is fenced from the north end a
distance of 200 feet, leaving a portion open within the existing chain link
fence and Mr. 3ohnson is willing to extend the existing fence an additional
175 feet to the south end of the property; that the westerly property line
(along Walnut Street) from the north to the south end is presently screened
by buildings, except for the south 125 feet of the Walnut Street frontage.
Although in front of the adjacent school, Mr. Gallagher pointed out, there is
a hedge which provides additional buffer from subject property.
Mr. Gallagher noted that if his client is required to put in 175
feet of block wall on Manchester Avenue and 125 feet of block wall on Walnut,
it will cost an estimated $6,000 to $7,000, whereas, he could extend the exist-
ing fence on Manchester to 1,500 feet and install additional bamboo fencing
over the existing chain link fence to provide an adequate screen for the south
125 feet on Manchester from public view, at a lesser cost. He noted that the
gate in this section could also be screened. He felt that the public interest
would be adequately protected by these measures.
Mr. Gallagher pointed out in further support of his position that
directly to the east side of subject property is the Anaheim Sand and Gravel
Company, whose existing outdoor u~'e is not screened, and that there are no
residences or sidewalks for pedestrians to the east. In addition, Mr. Gallagher
referred to the fact that the next item on this agenda is a proposed amendment
to the Anaheim Municipal Code which may modify requirements for fences and
walls in the M-1 Zone.
Councilman Pebley entered the Council Chambers (2:10 P.M.).
Councilman Stephenson stated that there appears to be some conflict
between Mr. Gallagher's statement and the operation as described, since in his
opinion, removal of the wheels and tires as described would constitute dis-
mantling.
Mr. Gallagher stressed that the remainder of the autos with drive
shafts, transmissions, and in most cases motors, intact are hauled away for
dismantling or wrecking at another location, and that he does not consider
this dismantling. In further answer to Councilman Stephens~n, he advised
that after the wheels are removed the automobiles are stacked on top of each
other to conserve space since there are a considerable number of automobiles
impounded by the California Highway Patrol and Anaheim Police Department at
this location.
Councilman Snee~as noted that an impound lot is a necessary service~
since there must be some place to which abandoned and Wrecked vehicles can be
taken. He advised that when the Police Department requests the impound lot
operator to remove an auto, it is up to the operator to re&lize whatever profit
he can from salvage of the vehicle or sale of the parts, and this is most
likely the reason for removal of certain parts on the impound lot.
In answer to Councilman Stephenson's query as to what happens to
these autos once they are hauled away from this lot, Mr. Garland Bie~ke of
W & W Towing advised that thess are taken to either of two sites, north
Long Beach or Terminal Island, where they are rum through shredders and
flattened out and then sold for scrap metal.
73-968
]ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30
Councilman Sneegas stated that he has been concerned over the access
problem to this property from Manchester Avenue, and Mr. Btenke reported that
it is now possible to gain entrance through Santa Aha Street ~L~ drive through
subject property with egress on Walnut Street. He assured Councilman Sneegaa
that there is no longer any need for backing out, nor for use of Manchester
to store vehicles.
Councilman Stephenson inquired as to the type of fence existing on
Manchester, and Mr. Bienke advised that this is a chain link fence, but that
the outdoor use is screened by buildings.
Councilman Sneegas questioned Mr. Bienke about the bamboo screen
proposed.
Mr. Bienke advised that this is split bamboo which is usually used
for shading. He stated that he does not propose to install this on Walnut
Street frontage chain link fence since this area will be used as a driveway
and for employees and customer parking. He reported that he has installed
another chain link fence about 40 feet inside of the Walnut Street property line,
which is the start of the actual impound lot, and this is the fence which will
be screened with bamboo.
Councilman Sneegas summarized that with this proposal, from the Walnut
Street side, only normal useable automobiles could be seen inside, and that no
actual wrecked cars or pieces of junk will be sitting out for public view, which
Mr. Bienke stated was correct.
The Mayor asked if anyone else, either in favor or opposition, wished
to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Roberts raised a point of clarification regarding the stipulation
to construction of a six-foot masonry wall and read from the minutes of the
City Planning C~m~,ission meeting held October 1, 1973, page 73-592, paragraph 2,
which indicated that Mr. Gallagher stated that the petitioner would stipulate to
construction of a seven-foot high masonry wall extending to the south along
Manchester Avenue and along the east side of Walnut Street, or west property line
of subject property wherein no structure exists. Immediately following this,
the motion was amended to provide for a six-foot wmll.
Mr. Gallagher contended that as far as he was concerned, he had requested
this stipulation be removed from the record, inasmuch as h~~ c!~n~ L~~ ~'~'~-~
him that this would be too much expense.
Councilman Thom stated that he would be amenable to removal of the
requirement for a six-foot wall on Manchester, noting the general area and land
uses existing.
Councilman Sneegas explained that as regards the Walnut Street frontage,
he would not be in favor of a block wall which obscures the view of vehicles
using this entrance, due to the location of the Betsy Ross Elementary School
directly opposite. Although he stated he would like to see conditions along
Manchester Avenue improved, he did not feel it would be fair to penalize one
individual without requiring similar improvements from the remaining property
owners.
Councilman Thom felt the objective, i.e., screening of the outdoor
use from public view, could be accomplished with a latticed chain link fence.
On conclusion of discussion, at the request of Mr. Roberts and the
City Council, Mr. Bienke outlined the intended use of the property and proposals
for screening as follows: The southerly half of the triangular shaped property
will be utilized strictly as an impound lot and for storage of wrecked vehicles;
on the east side of the property, (Manchester frontage) plans are to put up a
board fence approximately eight feet high extending down to the existing seven-
foot high wall which separates the property from the residential area; on the
Walnut Street side, there are two parallel fences, the one on the' sidewalk is
proposed to be left without any screening, the fence which is located 40 feet
73-969
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973~ 1:30 P~M.
east of the west (Walnut Street) property line will be screened with bamboo
attached to the existing chain link fence. He stipulated that only useable
vehicles of normal appearance will be parked in front of the inner fence,
and that no cars will be stacked up above the level of said inside fence.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-565: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 73R-565
for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1052 subject to review in
one year, amending Condition No. 1 of Planning Commission Resolution No.
PC73-219, as follows:
1. That the existing redwood fence shall be extended along the
west side of Manchester Avenue for the southerly 236 feet to the south property
line adjacent to the existing seven-foot masonry wall; and that the existing
chain link fence located parallel to, and 40 feet inside the chain link fence
on the Walnut Street frontage, shall be screened with bamboo material.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1052.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-565 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Dutton left the Council Chambers and Mayor Pro Tem Sneegas
assumed chairmanship of the meeting. (2:25 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED IMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (FENCES
AND WALLS~ M-I~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE): To consider amendment to Title 18, Chapter
18.52, M-I, Light Industrial Zone, Section 18.52.060, Site Development Standards,
Subsection ~3), Fences and Walls.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-235,
recou~ended the adoption of an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title
18, Zoning, Chapter 18.52, M-l, Light Industrial Zone, as depicted on Exhibit
Mr. Bill Young, Development Services Department, outlined the three
alternatives presented to the Planning Commission regarding enclosure of
outdoor uses in the M-1 Zone, i.e., 1. to permit slatted chain link fence
to enclose a storage area (passive uses) not adjacent to street frontages.
2. to permit chain link fence to enclose any outdoor use (both active and
passive), except when adjacent to street frontage. 3) to permit open chain
link fence (without slats) to enclose any outdoor use,~except when the area
is adjacent to street frontage, and in that case the chain link fence would
be required to be interwoven with redwood or dedar slats.
The City Planning Cog~nission reviewed these three alternatives
and recommended a composite of Alternatives 2 and 3, as follows:
(a) Required Screenin~ Adjacent to Residential or' Commercial'Zone
Boundmries: A solidmasonry wmll, landscaped earthen berm or any
thereof totaling not less than six (6) feet in.height, shill be re~ired along
and adjacent to any side or rear property line abutting any residential or
commercial zone boundary~ or any alley abu~tin$ any such zone b0und,ry,
Further, amy access gates shall be constructed of view-obscuring material
provide effective sight screening, provided, however, said ~lls or be~s
are not required adajcent to any lot zoned R-A which is under a Resolution
of Intent to any industrial zone.
(b) Required Enclosure of Outdoor Uses. The perimeter of any por-
tion of a site not adjacent to either a residential or commercial zone
boundary upon which any outdoor use of an industrial nature is permitted
shall be enclosed to a height of not less than six (6) feet either by solid
'3-970
:ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
masonry or building walls, chainlink fence entirely interwoven with redwood or
cedar slats, landscaped earthen berm or any combination thereof; and no outdoor
industrial use or enclosure thereof shall encroach into any required setback
area adjacent to any street, nor shall any storage of products or materials
exceed the height of any such enclosure; provided~ however~ that adjacent to
any street frontage, any outdoor use enclosed by chainlink fence shall be view-
screened from such street as follows:
1) Any portion of said' chainlink fence adjacent to any street frontage,
including access gates, shall be entirely interwoven with redwood
or cedar slats.
2) Trees, of a size of not less than fifteen (15) gallons, shall be
planted along and adjacent to said fence within the required street
setback area in a ratio of not less than one (1) tree per each
twenty (20) lineal feet of length of such fence and spaced according
to the spread of the species used, but in no case, more than twenty
(20) feet apart.
3) All required planting areas shall be provided with hose bibbs, sprink-
lers of similar permanent irrigation facilities and shall be permanently
maintained in a neat and orderly manner as a condition of use.
Councilman Pebley requested that the records show that he will abstain
from voting on this proposed ordinance, although he will participate in the
discussion, and that his remarks relative to this issue are made not as a
Councilman but as a land owner.
Mr. Pebley asked if this proposed ordinance would be retroactive for
existing M-1 properties in the City.
Mr. Young replied that this requirement would apply only to new construc-
tion and in the event an existing structure requires additional zoning action.
Mr. Young pointed out that the existing ordinance requires a solid masonry wall
and provides for no alternatives, that the proposed amendment is intended to
alleviate the stringency of the existing regulatiorsin order to provide for
alternative methods of enclosing outdoor uses. He reported that the proposed
ordinance does, however, on its adoption, add to the Anaheim Municipal Code
the requirement for solid masonry wall, landscaped earthen berm, or combination
thereof, along and adjacent to any commercial zone boundary, whereas, the masonry
wall requirement currently applies only to residential zoned boundaries.
Mr. Pebley noted that approximately 15 years ago when many of the currently
existing industrial buildings were constructed, the regulations were entirely
different and no block walls were required. He assumed that adoption of this
ordinance would impose these requirements upon the older buildings should they
need a building permit for structural changes or enlargement.
Councilman Thom stressed that the amendment under consideration is less
stringent than the ordinance as it is in effect currently, which requires a
masonry wall enclosing outdoor uses without provision for any alternatives.
Mr. Murdoch emphasized this point, that the present ordinance requires
a masonry wall next to residential zoned boundaries, and subjects the property
owners to a more stringent requirement than the proposed ordinance would.
Further, he noted that the older industrial properties would become subject to
this requirement only if they wished to change the type of use or expand in
some way which necessitated additional zoning action. The draft ordinance would
provide an alternative, which is a lesser option, and in addition apply this
requirement to commercial zoned boundaries.
Mr. Thompson related that one of the factors that brought this proposed
~mendment about was that certain ~4mivers from the Code have been granted, per-
mitting chainlink fences on interior property lines. It was felt that some
relaxation of the Code might be warranted in order to obviate the necessity for
the variance procedure and also to attempt to bring the Code up to date and in
line with the indications given by Council.
Councilman Dutton returned to Council Chambers (2:35 P.M.).
73-971
City Halls Anaheim& California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Nov-&her 27, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Sneegas asked if anyone wished to address the Council
either in favor or opposition to this proposed amendment to Title 18.
The Deputy City .Clerk submitted a letter from the Anaheim Chamber
of Commerce, under signature of Mr. Larry Sierk, Executive Vice President,
and Mr. Gerald T. Kennedy, Chairman of the Industrial C~,~ittee, recommending
adoption of the proposed ordinance as rec~,~ended by the City Planning Com-
mission in their Resolution No. PC73-235 (Exhibit "A"). Said letter was
read in full.
Mayor Pro Tem Sneegas asked if anyone else either in favor or in
opposition on this issue wished to address the Council; there being no response,
declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the requirement as proposed in Sub-
Section (&) of the draft ordinance for solid masonry wall, landscaped earthen
berm or combination thereof adjacent to a commercial zoned boundary is not a
relaxation of the current ordinance, but is rather a new requirement and he
felt that as such it would warrant discussion relative to its potential impli-
cations prior to adoption.
Mr. Bill Young explained the rationale behind the requirement for
screening of a commercial zoned boundary, as well as residential, giving
examples of commercial uses adjacent to M-1 uses which are considered incom-
patible and which are separated only by chainlink fencing at present.
Considerable discussion ensued, during which Mr. Pebley expressed
concerns regarding adoption of this additional requirement because of the
possibility that this will force an industrial property owner who wishes to
expand his present use,to remove the existing chainltnk fence which was
erected pursuant to City policy in the past and replace this with a costly
block wall in order to obtain a building permit.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that this requirement would not apply in the
case where the industrial property owner is expanding a use permitted as a
matter of right in the M-1 Zone, but would apply on expansion of a non-conform-
ing use or on changes in land use requiring further zoning action (variance,
conditional use permit). He observed that the screening of outdoor uses
adjacent to commercial zoned boundaries could be made a condition of approval
of their required zoning action which would adequately cover the situation,
At the conclusion of discussion, it was the gen~&l ¢on~aus of
Council opinion that the requirement for screening ¢o~rc~al ~o~d bounda~ies
would warrant further investigation prior to adoption, &~d ~her~for~, b~
general consent, the Council amended the r~com~end&~lon p~rsuant ~o Planning
Co~m~ission Resolution No. PC73-235 (Exh~bl~ "A"), ~o dmlete ~he word "or
commercial" wherever these appear within th~ proposed ordtnmncm.
ORDINANCE No. 3235: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3235 for
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITHE 18, CX~AP~I~ 18.52, OF TI~
ANAHEIM Mb~ICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Mayor Dutton resumed the chairmanship of the meet~n$.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - OFF-STREET.PARKINGP~..gU~N~,:...~-~
To consider amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.28,
rial Zone, Section 18.28.050, Site Development Standards, $~se¢~l~a (~0),
Off-Street Parking Requirements.
The City Planning Co~nission, pursuant ~O ~SS~lUt~ NO. ~7~-2~,
recommended adoption of the amendment to Title 18,~Ch&p~mr 18.~8, ~m~i~
18.28.050, Subsection (10), in accordancm withgxhib~t '~".
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assist&mt Planner, reported that ~his pro-
posed amendment was precipitated by the results of a Development Services
Department survey on parking provided in & sample of apartment houses which
73-972
Dity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
have been constructed since the last Code amendment was adopted in 1959. This
survey indicated that while the parking provided for on~ and three-bedroom
units is adequate, the spaces provided for two-bedroom units are not adequate
and that guest parking is not adequate at all. Therefore, the recuum,endation
was made by the Planning Commission that an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal
Code be adopted which would increase parking requirements for one- and two-
bedroom units and decrease the requirement for three-bedroom units. The amend-
ment provides that dwelling units with one or less bedrooms shall be provided
not less than 1.6 spaces and that dwelling units with two or more bedrooms shall
be provided with not less than 1.9 spaces.
Mr. Murdoch interrupted the report and suggested that this matter
would better be considered some time after the December 12, 1973, hearing on
the Transportation Element of the Euvironmental Protection Agency regulations,
so that the impact of said regulations upon parking spaces for multiple-family
residential units can be taken into consideration along with the proposed ordinance.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
public hearing on the amendment recommended by the Planning Commission, pursuant to
their Resolution No. PC73-236 (Exhibit "A"), was continued to January 2, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application filed by Mr. B. H. McGuire, B & G Distributors,
for Amusement Devices Permit to allow one cigarette machine and one juke box
at the Coronado Lounge, 1274 South Magnolia Avenue, was submitted and granted,
subject to provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recom-
mended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by
Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application filed by Mr. Bob A. Wilkinson for Entertainment
Permit to allow one to three musicians or singers at Mexi Casa, 226 NorthMan-
chester Avenue, seven days a week, 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., was submitted and
granted for a period of one year, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by
Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - ACCELERATION OF DEVELOPMENT - RIO VISTA PARK SITE: Mr. Gerald F. Prender-
gast, 161 South Jeanine Way, requested to again address the Council regarding
the possibility of accelerating development of the Rio Vista Park (petition
was submitted and discussion of this matter held on November 6, 1973).
The Deputy City Clerk submitted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Nickels,
2825 Dutch Avenue, urging the acceleration of park development.
Mr. Prendergast contended that the people of that area are entitled
to development of the Rio Vista Park in that each home, apartment unit and
condomintt~n, was assessed a certain amount of money specifically for park develop-
ment. Since these costs have been borne by the area residents in the price of their
homes, condominiums and rents, they now feel that the City should provide the
park.
Councilman Pebley pointed out that the cost of acquisition of the
Rio Vista Park property alone would use up the park in-lieu fees referred to
by Mr. Prendergast.
Mr. Murdoch sun~narized that since 1954, the total park in-lieu receipts
were $1,933,511.00, and during that same period of ti~ne park land acquisition
costs amounted to $3,951,303.00. With the addition of monies from bond funds
used for parks which totaled $1,400,000.00, the combined fig~re still does not
reach the ex]~enditure for land acquisition. Capital improv~nents on parks
during this period has reached $2,644,000.00 and another $314,000.00 was spex~t
for park equipment. These figures illustrate that the acquisition of the land
itself very likely exhausted the park in-lieu fees paid, as has been the City's
past experience.
Mr. Prendergast referred to the fact that the City of Anaheim wili
received $985,000.00 in sales tax from the State of California and additionally
73-973
City Halls Anaheima California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27a 1973, 1:30 P,M.
that it was recently announced that a refund may be expected on the Possessory
Interest Tax at the Stadium.
In answer to Councilman Thom, Mr. Murdoch estimated that the sum of
approximately $840,000.00 may be forthcoming, pending the Court ruling on
those asses~nents already levied, and there may be some possibility of increase
in this refund over that amount. He further noted that the City cannot expect
to receive these monies until an agreement is reached with the Assessor or,
if this is not possible, on completion of litigation, which might take two
years.
Councilman Pebley apprised Mr. Prendergast of the 1970 Bond 'Issue
for park development, which would have enabled the City to complete all of
the pending'parks, which was soundly defeated.
Councilman Dutton referred to the Bond Act approved for the 1974
ballot by the State Legislature which will, if approved, make available to the City
of Anaheim an additional $500,000.00, and in line with the priorities estab-
lished, this would accelerate development of Rio Vista Park site.
Mr. Prendergast disagreed with the logic of waiting for this addi-
tional $500,000.00 which may never be approved, and insisted that funds could
be provided from elsewhere. He stated that he could see no valid reason for
the City to leave this vacant property sit in its present state and requested
that the City be a good neighbor. Further, he felt the park should be con-
structed to provide a safe place for the neighborhood children to play and
noted that the gates to the school property are locked, barring the children
from using this as a playground. He reiterated that there are 3,513 people
which this park will serve who would appreciate its rapid development.
Councilman Pebley reminded Mr. Prendergast that both of these sub-
jects were discussed at length on November 6, 1973, and that the City Council
at that time requested the Park and Recreation Director to make sure that the
Rio Vista Park site is clean and weeds disced or hand removed if necessary.
Further, he stated that the representative from Placentia Unified School Dis-
trict who was present that day, (Mr. Patrick Bowman) assured Council that the
gates to the school property would be unlocked.
In answer to Councilman Thom, Mr. John Collier reported that it
currently costs approximately $15,000.00 per acre for park development in
situations such as the Rio Vista Park where the school restrooms are detached
from the school structure, as this eliminates the necessity for the City to
construct restroom facilities in the park, thereby, decreasing the costs
somewhat. In addition he reported that the City plans to lease the eastern
half of the school property (5 acres) which will increase the size of the pro-
jected park. He estimated the cost for development of this park site at
$75,000.00 to $100,000.00. He reported that the City paid $25,000.00 to
$28,000.00 per acre for the Rio Vista Park site property and that any addi-
tional construction or acceleration of the park schedule would require that
the City contract for labor since the two City crews will be engaged in current
construction at two sites in the western end of the City for the next two
years.
On learning from the Acting City Attorney that there is a good
possibility thmt the City will receive the Possesmory Interemt Tmx refumd
prior to the next fiscal year, Councilman Thom suggested that the Council
might make a c~litment to using a portion of this for park development,
noting this might enable the City to develop as much am 20 acres which, in
line with the established priority, would include the Jumrez and Rio Vista
Parks.
Mr. Murdoch illustrated park priorities by indicating on the map
posted in the Council Chamber that the area proposed to be served by Ju~rez
Park (roughly east of State College, south of Lincoln) currently h&8 no City
park facility at all, whereas the Rio Vista site is actually a'secomd park for
the area, Pioneer Park being located in that vicinity. The priority for a
second park is not anywhere near as high as that for an area without any.
He stated that as much as the City may be in sympathy with those who wish
73-974
City Hall~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973t 1:30 P.M.
the Rio Vista site to be developed, the disparity in priority must be recognized.
He ren~rked that he is frankly surprised that the Park and Recreation Commission
assigned the Rio Vista site second priority.
Mr. Murdoch further pointed out that while at the moment, because of
the freeway construction, access to Pioneer Park for those living to the east
of it is limited, once construction is completed, they will be provided a
pedestrian overpass which will lead directly to the Park grounds and Pioneer
Park will certainly be available to them until the Rio Vista site is complete.
Councilman Dutton noted that the necessity for the City to purchase
park property as soon as development activity in an area, and way in advance of
plans or capability to develop same, is the reason that there is much misunder-
standing regarding park development. Further, he remarked that the park in-lieu
fees paid at the time of development do not begin to cover even the purchase
price of the land itself. He also reminded the audience that the financial
burden for park property does not stop with development, that there is the con-
tinued cost of maintenance to be borne.
Mr. Prendergast advised that the homeowners feel the City should change
their current policy and pay for park property over an extended period of time,
thereby freeing funds for development.
Mr. Murdoch explained the State Laws which impose certain restrictions
on time-purchase of park property which makes it rather difficult for the City
to find a seller willing to accept the time-purchase terms which the City must
offer. He assured Mr. Prendergast that this approach is utilized whenever
possible.
Mr. Prendergast then inquired as to why there is a park presently under
construction in the Anaheim Hills area, near the Golf Course.
Councilman Sneegas, ass~ning Mr. Prendergast was referring to the Oak
Canyon site, emphasized that $100,000.00 of that development cost is being absorbed
by the contractor, as a gift to the City, and that there is considerably more
than this being donated in other amenities. He explained that this means, in
effect, that these expenses will not have to be paid eventually by the taxpayers.
Councilman Sneegas further pointed out that there are people living
on the south side of Lincoln Avenue who, if they thought it would enhance their
chances of accelerating park development in their area, would also appear before
the Council. He remarked that he felt it was a matter of being fair to all
residents of the City and following clearly established priorities in park develop-
ment. He expressed the opinion that it is Council's view that the parks will be
developed as quickly as possible within the order of priorities established by
the Park and Recreation C~m~ission.
Mr. Prendergast contended that the City has ignored the established
priorities in the past, noting the dates of. purchase of different park properties
and the fact that some of those already under construction were purchased after
the Juarez Park property.
Councilman Sneegas advised that the same criteria was used in estab-
lishing the priorities of construction mentioned by Mr. Prendergast as was used
to establish the priority of Rio Vista Park, notably, the number of people to
'be served by the park, the location of the nearest developed park~ and the length
of time the area has been wtthout'a park facility. He reiterated that until the
£reew&y construction,khe people in the immediate Rio Vista area had a park
accessible and as close to them as anyone else.
Mrs. Tom Roper reminded Council that many of the citizens who desired
acceleration of Rio Vista Park were instrumental in electing members to this
Council and that they have waited seven years for a park.
Mr. K~thy Loukas read a prepared statement which indicated that the
citizens of the Rio Vista Park area have been victimized and are .suffering
Unfairly because of the lack of a safe place for their children to play. It
is these conditions which force them to take drastic measures to bring their
73-975
City Hail, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
plight to Council's attention. She noted that on initial purchase of their
homes · certain amount of money was assessed for park development ·nd she
contended that the amount received far exceeded the necessary funds, and that
these funds were expended for other purposes. She challenged the Council to
face up to the children's needs and provide the Rio Vista Park.
Councilman Thom stated that he thought the ~ouncil could take a
position of c~m~itment by promising that they would allocate one-half of the
Possessory Interest Tax refund, to be used for development of parks in accord-
ance with the illustrated priorities in order to accelerate the park program
within the next eighteen months.
Mr. Murdoch cautioned that in making such a co,~itment at the present
time, the Council is assuming that the area is not currently served by a park
facility and will not be served as quickly as with alternative construction,
whereas this is not the case. He reiterated that the subject neighborhood is
adequately served by Pioneer Park, except for the immediate period of freeway
construction, which is temporary. At the conclusion of this, access to that
park will be direct, without any crossing of major streets.
Additionally, he stressed that adjacent to the east side of Lincoln
Avenue, also in this immediate facility, a joint project of the Orange County
Water District, Orange County Flood Control District and City of Anaheim with
Federal Funds, the 5 Coves Park, is in an early stage of construction. On
completion of this, that area will have more park facilities readily available
than any other part of the City, without the Rio Vista Park.
Mr. Prendergast asked if Mr. Murdoch was insinuating that the purchase
of Rio Vista Park site was an error on the City's part.
Mr. Murdoch replied that he felt ultimately, in the overall park
system which proposes to provide better services than are available currently,
this site should be developed. He remarked that he felt the mistake was in
assigning its priority as number 2, that he personally felt it should be fur-
ther back in the order of development.
Councilman Stephenson s~mmrized that the Council has received the
recommendations of the City Manager and Park and Recreation Con~nission and
Park and Recreation Director relative to the park priorities, and remarked
that Mr. Prendergast himself, as well as any other citizen, would not think
much of the Council if they refused to observe these.
Mr. Prendergast insisted that they have already paid money for a
park which has not yet been delivered.
Councilman Dutton again pointed out that the money collected from
the area in the form of park in-lieu fees from the developer did not amount
to enough to cover the purchase of the land for this park.
Councilman Sneegas remarked that he did not think it fair to operate
on a first-come, first-served basis and that the concensus of Co~cil opinion
appears to be that the park will be developed as soon as possible in relation
to its priority.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
T~NMINATION OF KECIASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-19: The request of Mr. Alan C. Paterson,
Robertshaw Controls Company, dated November 1, 1973, that proceedings under
ReclassificationNo. 73-74-19, approved by the City Council October 16, 1973,
for M-1 zoning on the west side of Manchester Avenue, east side of Clementine
Street and south side of Alto Way, be terminated, was submitted for Council consider-
ation.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-566: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 73R-566
for adoption, declaring Resolution No. 73R-475 null and void and termi~ating
R~classification No. 73-74-19.
Refer to Resolution Book.
73-976
".ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PRO-
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
N one
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-566 duly passed and adopted.
STATUS REPORT - PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGULATING APARTMENTS, CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWNHOUSES:
Progress report prepared by Planning Division of Development Services Depart-
ment was submitted for Council information and Mr. Don McDaniel advised that
this sunu~mrizes the efforts undertaken at Council's request of October 30, 1973,
towards the drafting of an ordinance regulating apartments, condominiums and
townhouses. Essentially, he noted they have examined the twelve planned residen-
tial developments approved within the City in the past two years and comparison
of these has produced some policies and criteria which may be used to develop
standards. Mr. McDaniel called attention to Table II of said report which
summarizes the effects of these proposed standards on the twelve approved planned
residential developments.
Mr. McDaniel advised that staff recommendation is that rather than
coming up with an urgency ordinance as originally discussed, the best procedure
would be, if Council approves in principle the criteria presented in Table II,
these may be used as guidelines from which the Planning Department can work to
develop the ordinance.
Councilman Thom inquired whether the report submitted had been pre-
sented to the Planning Commission as he would be interested in knowing their
r~action.
Mr. Ron Thompson replied that if these criteria are approved in prin-
ciple, then the entire proposed ordinance and supplementary documentation on
completion, would be submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendation.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
the City Council approved the Criteria presented in Development Services Depart-
ment report of November 27, 1973, and authorized a draft ordinance be prepared
and submitted to the City Planning Commission for rec~m.endation. MOTION CARRIED.
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 73-12E: Submitted by James W. Wilson, proposing to permit a
swimming pool to encroach into an existing public utility easement lying within
Lot No. 142 of Tract No. 3501, located south of Ball Road, west of Knott Avenue.
Also submitted was report of the City Engineer, recommending approval
of said request, providing that said encroachment will not exceed the height of
20 feet measured perpendicularly from the natural level of the ground.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-567: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-567 for
adoption, granting Encroachment Permit No. 73-12E, subject to the pr~vision
recommended by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING'THE TE~MS AND
CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
E~ECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH 3AMES W. AND DONNA A. WILSON. (73-12E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared ResolutiomNo. 73R-567 duly passed and adopted.
73-977
City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION (TRACT NO. 6733, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-53):
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Lots A and B of Tract No. 6733, executed
by Butler Housing Corporation in conjunction with development of said Tract,
was submitted and approved as to form, and recordation thereof authorized
on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 6733: Developer, Butler Housing Corporation; tract located on
the north side of Orangethorpe, east of Lakevtew Avenue; containing 52 RS-5000
zoned lots.
The City Engineer recc~m~ended approval and reported that said final
map conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved,'that
bond has been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval and required fees
paid.
On rec~m,endation of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton moved that
Final Map Tract No. 6733 be approved, subject to approval of their required
bond by the City Attorney. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Con~nission at
their meeting held November 12, 1973, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council information and consideration: (The Deputy
City Clerk noted that due to the anticipated lack of quorum on December 4,
1973, the Planning Commission items are being considered by Council one week
in advance of the usual schedule. She announced that the last day for appeal
of these items will be Tuesday, December 4, 1973, at 5:00 p.m.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION STATUS: As recommended by the City
Planning C~L~,ission, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, it was the finding of the City Council that impact of the project
in the following zoning applications would be trivial in nature and that no
Environmental Impact Reports or Statements be required:
Conditional Use Permit No. 996
Conditional Use Permit No. 1417
Conditional Use Permit No. 1429
Conditional Use Permit No. 1432
Conditional Use Permit No. 1433
Variance No. 2564
MOTION CARRIED.
1. VARIANCE NO. 2564: Submitted by Gertrude M. Eggleston, to subdivide an
existing substandard sized R-A lot into two portions, leaving an existing
dwelling on one portion and developing an industrial use on the other. Prop-
erty is located on the west side of Miller Street, north of Miraloma Avenue,
with waivers of:
a. Minimum lot area.
b. Minimum lot width.
The City Planning Co~nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-248,
granted said Variance, subject to conditions.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 996: Submitted by Leslie W. and Velva A.
Gardner, to expand a day school in an existing residence for kindergarten
through sixth grade students on R-1 zoned property located on the south'side
of Vermont Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard.
The City Plannin~ C~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. I~73-241,
granted said Conditional Use Permit for a maximum of 80 students, subject to
conditions.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1417: Submitted by Clarence Meddock, to estab-
lish bus storage facilities in conjunction with an. adjacent transportation
center on C-3 zoned property located on the south side of Katella Way, east
of Master Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-242,
granted said Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions.
3-9;8
:ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30 P?M.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1429: Submitted by Orangethorpe Mini Company,
to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard in an existing M-1 warehouse
site on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of Raymond Avenue, with
waivers of:
a. Required block wall surrounding an outdooruse.
b. Minimum required number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-243,
granted said Conditional Use Permit, subject to one condition.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1432: Submitted by Dunn Properties Corporation,
to construct a conference room and an 70-room addition to an existing motel on
M-1 zoned property located on the south side of Katella Avenue, west of State
College Boulevard, with waiver of:
a. Required number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-244,
granted said Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1433: Submitted by Raymond and Pauline Tedford,
to permit on-sale liquor not integrated with a restaurant on C-1 zoned property
located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, on the west side of Dale Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-245,
granted said Conditional Use Permit for on-sale liquor, subject to conditions.
The foregoing applications were reviewed by the City Council and no
further action taken.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1427 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 106:
Application by Dunn Properties Corporation for the following Code waivers to
establish two enclosed restaurants with cocktail lounges, an office structure
and bank site on M-1 zoned property located at the northwest corner of Katella
Avenue and State College Boulevard, was submitted, together with Environmental
Impact Report No. 106:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Minimum lot size.
c. Maximum height of walls and setbacks.
d. Permitted sign location.
e. Maximum sign area.
f. Minimum distance between signs.
The City Planning C~muission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-240,
recommended that Environmental Impact Report No. 106 be adopted as Council's
statement and granted said Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by
Councilman Stephenson, the City Council accepted Enviroranental Impact Report
No. 106 and E. I. R. Review Committee analysis thereof, together with City
Planning Conwaission recommendation, and adopted s~ne as the statement of the
Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit No. 1427.
CHRIS11~AS TREE LOT - 1179 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD: Request of Mr. Vincent J.
Sweeney, 2200 Ball Road, for permission to operate a Chris~mas tree lot at
1179 South State College Boulevard, a R-3 zone, was submitted for Council con-
lideration, together with report from Development Services Department, advising
that previou~ similar operations on this site have not generated any complaints
and that the present proposal would not appear to detrimentally affect the
adjacent land uses.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Counctlman-Duttou, request
Go operate a Christmas tree sales facility at 1179 South State College Boulevard,
in the R-3 zone, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
73-979
City Hmll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27.a 1973a 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-568 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 707-A: In accordance with recom-
mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No.
73R-568 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWESTRESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FUR-
NISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENTANDALL UTILI-
TIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT:
THE WINSTON ROAD STREET IMPROIrEMENT, EAST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, 'IN
CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 707-A. (Parco - $5,732.29)
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-568 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution Nos. 73R-569
and 73R-570 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-569 - WORK ORDER NO. 709-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: THE WEST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM MANCHESTER AVENUE TO HAMPSHIRE
AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 709-A. (Bids to be opened
December 20, 1973, 2:00 pom.)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-570 - yORK ORDER NO. 1250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: THE SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD AND PERALTA HILLS DRIVE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1250. (Bids to be opened December 20,
1973, 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 73R-569 and 73R-570 duly passed
and adopted.
FINAL COMPLETIONS: Upon receipt of certifications from the Director of Public Works,
Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Nos. 73R-571 through 73R-574, both
inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-571 - WORK ORDER NO. 698-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING IME COMPLETION AND T~E FUR-
NISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MAIERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILI-
TIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FINLAND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE
OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLE/E THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT, TO WIT: THE NOh-L RANCH ROAD AND ROYKL OAK ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT,
NORTHWEST CORNER, iN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 698-A. (R. J. Noble
Company)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-572 - WORK ORDER NO. 699-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 AN~ EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
73-980
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK
NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
THE IA CRESTA AVENUE-RED GUM STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 699-A. (Griffith Company)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-573 - WORK ORDE.R NO, 700-B: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF
ALL PLANT, IABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANS-
PORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK
NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
THE BLUE GUM STREET AND MIRALOMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMEN~ IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 700-B. (Jim's Blade Service)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-574 - WORK ORDEg NO. 701-B: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PIANT, IABOR, 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 HOWELL
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, FROM 118 FEET SOUTH OF SUNKIST STREET TO 4 FEET NORTH
OF SINCLAIR STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 701-B. (Jim's Blade
Service)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCIIREN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 73R-571 through 73R-574, both inclu-
sive, duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-575 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution
No. 73R-575 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS
AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Weslin Ltd.; Dale E. Fowler, et ux; Christine
O'Donnell; Arno Heying, Conservator, etc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-575 duly passed and adopted.
CANCELLATION OF COUNTY TAXES (FORMER BANK OF AMERICA PARKING LOT - PARCEL 1): On
motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the Orange County
Board of Supervisors was requested to cancel County Taxes on property acquired
by the City of Anaheim for municipal purposes, pursuant to Resolution No. 7~R-549,
formerly assessed to Merchants National Realty Corporation, recorded November 19,
1973, as Document No. 13557, in Book 10993, at Page 626, Official Records of
Orange County, California. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-576 - TRANSFER OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY: Councilman Dutt~n offered
Resolution No. 73R-576 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE
CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27a 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIIMEN:
NOES: COUNCII~EN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-576 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 1 FOUR WHEEL STREET SWEEPER: The City Manager reported on
informal bids received for the purchase of one four-wheel street sweeper for
the Streets and Sanitation Division, as follows, and recommended acceptance
of the low bid:
VENDOR
Dearth Machinery Co., Baldwin Park
Nixon-Egli Equipment, Santa Fe Springs
TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX
$17,742.90 19,817.45
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the low bid of Dearth Machinery Company was accepted, and purchase authorized
in the amount of $17,742.90, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
ROOFING INSPECTION AND CONSULTING SERVICE - ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER: Agreement
for inspection services and reports on the re-roofing of the existing buildings
at the Anaheim Convention Center with Roofing Inspection and Consulting Service
in the amount of $4,500.00, was submitted and approved on motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED.
EMPLOYEES' DENTAL INSURANCE: Mr. Garry McRae, Personnel Director, reported on the
seven proposals received for pre-paid dental care and five proposals for an
indemnity plan. The pre-paid plans were evaluated in terms of facilities
available and service offered, costs and range of services and the conclusion
was Dr. Kauf~an's plan offered the widest range of benefits within the price
stipulations that were established in the bid specifications. ~e facilities
were visited and found to be satisfactory. The benefits and surcharges pro-
posed by Dr. Kaufman are the most reasonable of those which were investigated.
Dr. Kaufman guarantees the proposed rates for at least two years, and he has
indicated that this rate may essentially be permanent.
Mr. McRae further reported that the recommended indemnity plan is
that proposed by the California Dental Service, Program No. II. The benefits
under this Program are based on reasonable and customary charges, rather than
arbitrary fee schedule. Another feature which was considered beneficial was
that this Program has no deductible so that there' is first-dollar coverage
for the employee and his family.
Councilman Thom inquired as to how these two plans will be implemented,
to which Mr. McRae answered that during the month of December, each employee
will be given a choice of either Plan. Coverage will then be effective for
one year under his chosen Program, with an open period in January of each year
during which an employee may elect to change his dental coverage to the other
Plan provided.
Councilman Dutton, noting that one Plan provides for dental services
through a clinic arrangement and the o~her allows employees to s~lect a dentist
of their choice, inquired as to the difference in the benefits between these
two plans.
Mr. McRae explained that Dr. Kaufman's Plan has ver~ limited
charges and that these would be reduced over a period of four years by
25 percent per year, to the point where ultimately the patient will have no
surcharges for treatment, after being in the plan continuously for four years.
Dr. Kaufman added that there are basically eleven procedures for
which surcharges are made, and reiterated that these would be reduced over a
four-year period after which no surcharges would be made for these procedures;
the one exception to this being for orthodontic care for which there is a
one-time charge of $50.00, but that fee would remain applicable to all mem-
bers, the number of years enrolled notwithstanding.
72-982
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Thom asked whether Dr. Kaufman's staff included a board-
certified orthodontist.
Dr. Kaufman replied that there is a board-qualified orthodontist
on staff, pointing out ghat in order to become board-certified, an orthodontist
must have many years in practice. He explained that the two members of his
staff practicing orthodontics are orthodontically trained and board-qualified
although not certified.
In further answer to Councilman Thom, Dr. Kaufman stated that there
are two oral surgeons on his staff, one of whom is board-certified and the other
is board-qualified.
Councilman Thom stated that the reason he is inquiring about the
orthodontic care is that this most likely is one o~ the'major dental expenses
which employees with young children are likely to face, and that they, of
course, would be concerned about the quality of the care under the proposed
pre-paid dental program.
Dr. Kaufman commented that he is as concerned as Councilman Thom
regarding the quality of orthodontic care, as well as all other dental care
offered, since the success or failure of the Program would be contingent upon
the standards of care provided.
Councilman Stephenson asked if employees would vote by sectors or
divisions to join one or the other of these Plans.
Mr. McRae replied that the two Plans will be available to all of those
employees covered by agreements and all of those unrepresented employees who
are not in a labor relations unit. Each employee, individually, will have two
options, and the opportunity to elect which Plan he wishes to join and to re-
elect annually in January if he should wish to change his membership. This
necessitates that the City enter two different agreements to provide the coverages
which each employee requests.
Mr. McRae added that inasmuch as the Anaheim Police Association has
not yet signed the Memorandum of Understanding, their coverage is deferred until
such time as an agreement is reached.
Councilman Pebley asked what the situation would be if an employee
does not wish any dental insurance.
Mr. McRae advised since there is no cost to the employee, it is assumed
that all employees will select one Plan or the other and will derive the benefits
thereof, even if visiting the dentist for cleaning only once a year.
Councilman Dutton noted that the Anaheim Police Association still has
the option of not accepting the dental insurance, which statement Mr. McRae
corroborated.
Councilman Thom inquired whether anything other than an arithmetical
or statistical evaluation was applied to the closed panel (pre-paid) Plans
submitted, or if an opinion of these was solicited from any organization, such
as the Orange County Dental Society, specificially whether these had been sub-
mitted to such & c~m,,ittee for written report.
Mr. Tom Tyre replied thIt he did speak with the Chairman of the Dental
Care C~ittee o~ the Orange County Dental gociety, ag well ag with two other
private dentists, regarding the pre-paid Plans and obtained an opinion on them
although these Plans were not actually submitted. He stated that he did submit
the Indemnity Plans for evaluation and discussion.
Councilman Thom stated that he was concerned about the full-coverage
Plan and stated that he would like a professional evaluation of it in comparison
to the otherm which were bid. He remarked that as a layman, it is dif£ieult
him to evaluate anything other than numbers and stressed that he felt that an
~valuation should be sought from a professional body, such as the Orange County
Dental Society because only a professional committee can give an opinion on the
quality of the work received for the money paid.
73-983
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
Further, Councilman Thom remarked that he has received adverse com-
ments from some professional members of the Anaheim c~mnity in dentistry~
regarding the method of selection of the Plans, who suggested that the pro-
cedure should have been to solicit an evaluation of the proposed Plans from
the Committee on Dental Care of the Orange County Dental Society, which offers
this service. With such an evaluation, the City would know exactly what it
is they are purchasing.
Mr. McRae advised that their approach to the pre-paid Plan was
largely affected by the fact that the Anaheim Fire Association had determined
that they would be most interested in Dr. Kaufman's Plan and were concerned
about being able to continue with it, as their users had expressed great
satisfaction. In addition, Mr. McRae referred to the fact that he personally
had received assurance from a business representative of a union group
(Teamsters) which has several thousand families insured under an arrangement
with Dr. Kaufman, that the treatment and quality of care received was above
reproach. He noted that Mr. Tyre had discussed the closed panel Plan, as
well, with the Chairman of the Orange County Dental Society, and although the
magnitude of the Plan, i.e., the amount of benefits vs. the costs, were not
presented, the professional reputation and the facilities provided were dis-
cussed.
Mr. Tyre stated that the Chairman of the Committee did have very
favorable c~ents about the particular clinic selected, whereas he did not
about some of the other bidders, and this served to re-enforce their decision.
Councilman Thom felt that each specific plan should have been sub-
mitted to a professional c~mL~ittee for review.
Mr. McRae stated that he felt what Councilman Thom is requesting
has already been accomplished in that the various bidders were discussed with
the Chairman of this Committee in terms of their professional performance and
that the Personnel Department felt capable of making the dollars and cents
judgments of these Programs, i. e., evaluating the basic cost of the plan vs.
the surcharges, vs. the included services, exceptions and exemptions. The
Indemnity Plan was more complicated since it dealt with fee schedules and
therefore these were submitted for professional review as to the best buy for
the amounts proposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-577: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 73R-577
for adoption, approving the terms and conditions of an agreement with
James H. Kaufman, D. D. S., to provide pre-paid dental coverage, effective
3anuary 1, 1974.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
FOR A FULL COVERAGE, PRE-PAID DENTAL CARE PlAN BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
JAMES H. KAUFMAN, D. D. S., INCORPORATED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCII2REN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-577 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-578: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 73R-578
for adoption, approving the terms and conditions of an agreement with
California Dental Service to provide an Indemnity Plan for dental coverage,
effective January 1, 1974.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAg~IM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
FOR AN INDEMNITY PLAN BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CALIFORNIA DENTAL SERVICE.
73- 84
Zity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN: S tephenson
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-578 duly passed and adopted.
REPORT - ANA~IM POLICE ASSOCIATION SAI~RY MEDIATION: Councilman Duttom requested
clarification from Mr. McRae regarding a rumor which had reached him that
mediation between the City and the Anaheim Police Association over salary
negotiations had been discontinued, to which Mr. McRae replied that according
to the mediator, he is still actively engaged in attempting to resolve the
problem.
In answer to Councilman Stephenson, Mr. McRae stated that the option
does remain open to the Anaheim Police Association to decline the dental plan,
and to receive the equivalent of the City's cost for such a Plan in salary
($10.00). He noted this was indicated and discussed early in the salary negotia-
tions and it was the opinion of the negotiating con~nittee, before the final offer
was made, that it would be beneficial for them to accept the dental plan, however,
since the offer has been rejected, this is still open to discussion.
Councilman Pebley asked Mr. McRae if he had investigated and could
report on comparative salaries for patrolmen in the other large cities of Orange
County, noting that he has read newspaper accounts of great disparities.
Mr. McRae explained that the total cost to the City of Anaheim for each
patrolman, i. e., salary, plus his fringe benefits package, which amounts to
$1,444.91 currently per month and would become $1,551.18 with the 6 3/4 percent
increase offered, was compared with all other police departments in the County
paying a basic monthly salary which is equal to or higher than the City of Anaheim
for a patrolman after three years. This comparison disclosed the following
figures:
CITY
TOTAL MONTHLY COST
AFTER THREE YEARS
Brea
Santa Aha
Newport Beach
County of Orange - Sheriff
Dept. (Deputy II)
$1,157.00 (not to be reviewed until October 1974)
1,381.15 (scheduled to receive 3% increase in
April 1974)
1,417.51 (effective until July 1, 1974)
1,423.00
Councilman Dutton noted that comparing the total costs of each city
for a patrolman, it would appear that Anaheim is number one in Orange County,
contrary to the information which has been promulgated. He asked how the City
of Anaheim patrolmems' salaries stand in relationship to the entire State.
Mr. McRae replied that he was not able to find a composite on salary
information as regards present salaries of police officers in California, however,
according to last year's plan, the City of Anaheim was number 76 and the current
adjustment offered would bring Anaheim up to the 15th or 30th position. However,
'he advised that this comparison was made on the basis of salary only, disregarding
any fringe benefit changes.
In answer to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. McRae advised that Santa Aha will
adopt C. H. P. Retirement July 1, 1974, and this will, assuming their percentage
is similar to the City of Anaheim's 23 percent, bring their cost per patrolman
up to exceed the City of Anaheim on that date.
In addition, Mr. McRae advised that the cities of Costa Mesa, Fullerton
and Orange were not compared because their basic salary rates were below the City
of Anaheim.
73-985
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Dutton noted that another item of contention between the
City ahd the Anaheim Police Association is the matter of the 42~-hour work
week whereas they state they are only paid for 40 hours since they have to be
on the job one-half hour prior to the beginning of their shift.
Councilman Stephenson explained that the day shift works from
6:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.mo, with one-half hour for lunch, which amounts to
an 8-hour work day.
Mr. Murdoch remarked that the 42~ hours referred to above includes
the lunch period when they are not on duty.
Councilman Sneegas asked if the City reached its current level of
benefits provided for policemen on its own initiative, and was this agreed
to by the employee representatives.
Mr. McRae stated that the benefit package has been clearly negotiated
since 1966 and discussed in detail with the employee organizations since 1961-
62. The current benefit package reflects a bilateral approach to the affixing
of these benefits.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by the
City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton:
ao Claim submitted by The Kettle Restaurant for damage to property,
purportedly resulting from faulty transformer on or about August 27, 1973, and
October 19, 1973.
b. Claim submitted by Cathleen DuCoing for personal property
damage, purportedly by City vehicle sustained while parked in city parking
lot on or about October 5, 1973.
c. Claim submitted by Donald J. Lord for personal property damage,
purportedly as a result of power connections on or about October 7, 1973, and
October 19, 1973.
d. Claim submitted by Michael P. Chaffee for personal property
damage, purportedly resulting from power surge and failure on or about
October 23, 1973.
e. Claim submitted by Inventive Manufacturing and Marketing Corpora-
tion for personal..property loss, purportedly resulting from power failure on
or about November 4, 1973o
f. Claim submitted by Frank Rodriquenz for personal injuries,
purportedly resulting from condition of cement at the 17th tee at Anaheim
Municipal Golf Course on or about November 6, 1973.
g. Claim submitted by Leroy B. Schultz for personal property damage,
purportedly resulting from electrical power surge on or about October 23,
1973.
h. Claim submitted by Samuel Flores for damage to vehicle, purportedly
as m result of a deep hole in the street at the northwest corner of Harbor
and Cypress on or about November 6, 1973.
i. Claim submitted by Robert C. Freund for personal property damage,
purpotedly resulting from collision with police vehicle on or about November 11,
1973.
MOTION CARRIED.
REVISION OF COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL: The City Clerk advised that the Council Policy
Manual is currently out of print and presented re¢o~nended revisions to said
Manual which were printed adjacent to current policies, for CounGil consideration.
Mr. Murdoch re£erred to Council Policy No. 508 pertaining to zoning
on the City's periphery, and stated that he would not recon~nend that said
policy be repealed for the reason stated as LAFCO is specifically prohibited
by law from considering zoning matters. It would, therefore, in hisopinion~
be better to leave the Council Policy No. 508 in effect.
Regarding Council Policy No. 516 pertaini~ to substandard R-3 lots~
wording changes were proposed replacing the term."architectural control board"
to Development Services Department and making reference to all multiple family
zoned lots, rather than just R-3 lots. Mr. Murdoch suggested that the wording
Development Services Department be replaced by "Interdepartmental Corm~ittee".
73-986
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Clerk reported that additional revisions will be brought up
for City Council consideration in the future, but that these recommendations
will allow the Policy M~nual to go back into print.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
revisions to the Council Policy Manual, with the amendments suggested by
Mr. Murdoch, were approved as recommended by the City Clerk. MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton:
a. Orange Unified School District - Notice - Sale of surplus property.
b. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Investigation on the
Commission's own motion into the adequacy and reliability of the energy and fuel~
requirements and supply of the electric public utilities in the State of California.
c. State Water Resources Control Board - Notice of Public Hearing -
Water Quality Control Policy for the bays and estuaries of California.
d. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2266 - Opposing the split of
the present Orange County Telephone Directory into two separate directories.
e. City of Villa Park - Resolution No. 73-317 - Supporting more
stringent enforcement of motor vehicle noise laws.
f. City of Buena Park - Resolution No. 5114 - Opposing the applica-
tion of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for authority to split the
present Orange County Telephone Directory into two separate directories, to be
known as the Orange Coast Telephone Directory and the Orange County Directory.
g. Financial and Operating Report for the Month of October, 1973 for City
Treasurer.
MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - RESOLUTION NO. 8132 (REQUESTING THE DIRECTORS
AND OFFICERS OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO REFRAIN FROM TAKING A POSITION ON
BALLOT MEASURES OF STATEWIDE INTEREST PRIOR TO A VOTE OF ALL MEMBER CITIES}: The
City Council, by general consent, authorized the City Manager to draft a resolution
similar to that adopted by the City of Newport Beach (Resolution No. 8132) to
be submitted for City Council consideration.
WORK SESSION - DECEMBER 18~ 1973, 10:00 A.M.: Mr. Murdoch requested a Council work
session for the purpose of reviewing the Park and Recreation Commission recom-
mendations concer~ing land acquisition, as well as the Transit Corridor to study
findings as presented by the Orange County Transit District.
By general Council consent, it was determined to conduct the requested
work session at an adjourned regular meeting on Tuesday, December 18, 1973, 10:00a.m.
RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a 10-minute recess. Councilman Pebley seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present.
(5:10 P.M.)
REPORT - MUNICIPAL ELECTION; APRIL 9~ 1974: The City Clerk, Dene Daoust, reported
that at the December 18, 1973 Council meeting, she proposes to present two resolutions
for Council adoption, calling the General Municipal Election on April 9, 1974 and
ordering the proposed Charter Amendment Election to be held at the April 9th Election.
Mrs. Daoust noted that the services usually performed by the Orange
County Registrar~ which include preparation of the four indices of the Grand
Registe% addressing with polling place noted, and stuffing of the'envelopes with
sample ballots, candidate qualification pamphlets and charter arguments~ are
expected to be increased in cost over those of the last election. They are pro7
jected to be approximately $6,OO0.OO for 80,000 registered voters. In compari-
son to this~ she reported that Product's of Information Systems, a computer com-
pany which specializes in these services~ can perform this function at a cost
o£ $5,696.00. This will result not only in an initial savings of-$298.00, but
will provide the City of Anaheim the opportunity of fur~ishing the candidates
with copies of the index for a charge of $40.00 for each set. For these
reasons, she recommended that the City contract with Products Information
Systems~ Inc. for these services.
Regarding the type of ballot proposed for the 1974 General Municipal Elec-
tion, the City Clerk reported that the cost for a card ballot has just recently
come into the range of being acceptable and to where she could recommend it. In support
· of the use of this more sophisticated card ballot system, Mrs. Daoust advised Council
that it is increasingly difficult to secure election officers when they are re-
quired to tally paper ballots. In addition, she advised that the City of
Amaheim's Mnnicipal Election ballot is becoming larger ~and larger, the 1972
ballot being the largest of any city in Orange County.
73-987
~it~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27? 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Daoust recommended that the City utilize the Accu-vote system,
which involves rental of ballot punches for each precinct and counting mach-
ines to tabulate the votes cast. The machine which the City is currently
scheduled to receive, pending Council approval, counts 400 ballots per minute,
however there is a possibility that the company's mini computer will be avail-
able for use by the City of Anaheim at no extra cost, which computer will count
in excess of 1,000 per minute. Based on an estimated 85 consolidated pre-
cincts, election services~ supplies and equipment will amount to an estimated
$16,000. This is $5,000 more than the appurtenances involved in the paper
ballot method, however, the convenience to the voter and the election offi-
cers, plus the time saved in tabulation of the results, in her opinion,
justifies this additional expenditure. She advised that the Accu-vote system
was also evaluated by Mr. Larry Runion, Manager of the City Data Processing
Operation and his opinion was that they could not program the City computers
for tabulation of the ballots and perform this function as reasonably as was
quoted by the Martin and Chapman Company for the Accu-vote system.
Further, Mrs. Daoust advised that the election budget will be over-
expended whether the former paper ballot system or the card ballot is used,
and the necessity for transfer from the Council Contingency Fund of $6,000
to $8,500 is anticipated. This is due in part to the increased activity in
annexations and the increased State fees for annexations, as well as the
additional costs connected with the proposed Charter Amendment. As a result
of the last reapportionment legislation, the boundaries of the City precincts
will be revised by the County and there is no way of knowing at this time
if this will increase or decrease the total number of precincts.
In conclusion, Mrs. Daoust further recommended that the Council con-
sider naming her successor by December 18, 1973 with effective date of
January 4, 1974, so that the election supplies may be printed carrying the
name of the new City Clerk.
Councilman Thom stated he would certainly not question any of the
recommendations made, but stated he would like to see what a card ballot
looks like in comparison to a paper ballot.
Mrs. Daoust produced a sample card ballot and a picture of the
ballot punch which was reviewed by all Councilmen, and explained the proce-
dure used by the election officer at the polls.
Councilman Thom asked if the same information which would normally
appear on a paper ballot would also appear on this card, to which Mrs. Daoust
answered affirmatively.
Councilman Thom asked if any difficulties have occurred with the
use of this system, and specifically was the print too sm~ll for voters to
read.
Mrs. Daoust replied that of all of the various voting machfne
methods she has reviewed, this particular one has proven most successful.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that Mrs. Daoust also investigated the
security of the ballot and noted that this system offers an extremely secure
procedure, which is also undoubtedly much more accurate.
In answer to Councilman Pebley, the City Clerk advised that each
precinct will be supplied with four of the punches, three for the voting
booths, and one as a demonstrator.
Mr. William D. Ehrle, requested permission to inspect the ballot
and on review of this, inquired whether the use of such a card ballot would
necessitate that the Charter Amendment be placed on a second card.
The City Clerk advised that there should be ~mple room on both
sides of one card for all of the Councilmanic candidates as well as' the
Charter Amendment and other measures. She advised it would be highly unlikely
that the second card would be required.
73- ~88
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council authorized the Preparation of the resolutions calling the
General Municipal Election and the election on the Charter Amendment, April 9,
1974 and finalization of the election arrangements as outlined and recommended
by the City Clerk. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3233: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3233 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37 (8) - M-i)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3233 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3234: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3234 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (58) - C-R)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3234 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3224: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3224 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.04,
SECTIONS 2.04.040 AND 2.04.050 AND ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS 2.04.040,
2.04.045 AND 2.04.050 RELATING TO SALES AND USE TAXES. (Sales tax,
application of provision relating to exclusions and exemptions and
use tax)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCIIREN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3224 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3236: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3236 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32,
SECTION 14.32.190 PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No parking any time - Romneya
Drive; north side from Dresden Place to Euclid, south side from Arbor
Street to Euclid)
ORDINANCE NO. 3237: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3237 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-36 - R-3)
73-989
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3238: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3238 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-23 - C-I)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-579 - DISABILITY RETIREMENT - LOCAL SAFETY MEMBER EMPLOYEES:
Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 73R-579 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE APPLICATIONS FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT OF
LOCAL SAFETY MEMBER EMPLOYEES AND TO INITIATE REQUESTS FOR REINSTATE-
MENT OF EMPLOYEES RETIRED FOR DISABILITY AND TO DELEGATE SUCH AUTH-
ORIZATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-579 duly passed and adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - PROPOSED PARKING SURCHARGE: Mr. Larry Sierk,
Executive Vice President of the Anaheim Chamber of Cor~nerce, submitted a
notice soliciting support of the position taken by the Chamber in opposition
to the parking facility surcharges as established by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency on November 12, 1973. Also included with the letter requesting
support was an information sheet prepared by Mr. R. $. McMillan, Chairman of
the Environmental Affairs Committee and a copy of the resolution declaring
the opposition of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce to the E.P.A. surcharges
and further recommending that the United State Congress review and revise
the Air Quality Control Act of 1970 which established the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
Mr. Sierk advised that the E.P.A. having received severe objections
to their plans to cut back the number of available parking spaces by 20%,
developed the surcharge program in an effort to encourage usage and develop-
ment of mass transit systems, thereby reducing automobile pollutants. It is
the opinion of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Sierk stated, that the
proposed parking surcharge is a piece of irresponsible legislation which will
have a profound deleterious impact not only on thebusiness community, but on in-
dividuals as well. He reported that it is estimated these surcharges will
cost the average citizen 10% of his disposable income. He stated that the
E.P.A. must be urged to make a complete analysis of the economic impact of
their action before any such environmental control is enacted.
Mr. Sierk reported that the Chamber of Commerce has taken action
on this issue by informing their membership of the potential impact of this
legislation and has forwarded the letter and information as submitted to the
Council to many sectors of the population, encouraging them also to make their
feelings known on this matter.
In addition, Mr. Sierk stated that although the public hearing on
the surcharges is over, the records will remain open to receive written testi-
mony until December 12, 1973 and he urged that the City Council respond and
declare their position at this time. He noted that the first year of this
program is estimated to drain one hundred million dollars out of the economy
of the City of Anaheim, the majority of which will be paid by the average
worker, since he will be required to absorb the parking surcharge not only at
work, but also at the shopping centers in the form of increased cost of mer-
chandise, etc.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that in connection with the transportation
control plans as promulgated by the E.P.A., the City Council should also con-
sider the potential effects and impact of the complex sources regulations pro-
posed by this same agency and scheduled for public hearing on December 7, 1973
73- .90
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
in San Francisco. He advised that a copy of the analysis and opinion regarding
the complex sources regulations, prepared by Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Super-
visor, has been submitted to Council and that if Council concurs, some indica-
tion of that position should be prepared and forwarded to the Environmental
Protection Agency as soon as possible.
Acting City Attorney Alan Watts explained that there are two separate
and distinct sets of regulations pending before the E.P.A. at the present time,
one dealing with transportation control plans, which Mr. Sierk has addressed,
and the other dealing with complex sources regulations which would govern indus-
trial complexes, shopping centers, sports stadiums, large master-planned com-
munities, etc.
As regards the parking surcharges proposed under the transportation
control plan, Mr. Watts advised that it is anticipated these would have a
pervasive effect and would apply to all segments of the population, the only
possible exception being parking in the driveway of one's own home. Mr. Watts
reported that he has been in contact with representatives of the League of
California Cities regarding this issue and has been informed that the Cities
of San Francisco and San Jose intend to file legal action against the E.P.A.
and offered to explore the possibility of the City of Anaheim entering joint
litigmtion, if this is Council's desire.
Mr. Don McDaniel further reported that the cost to the City government
of Anaheim for parking surcharges in 1974 under the regulations established
as of November 12, 1973, is estimated to be $26,157,000 including the on-street
parking spaces. In 1976, this cost would amount to $65,000,000.
Mr. R. J. McMillan, Chairman of the Environmental Affairs Committee
of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, advised that he had personally been in
touch with the E.P.A. and had asked if any exceptions to these surcharges would
be allowed. He was advised that the only exceptions would be areas designated
for mass transit loading and unloading, disabled veterans and handicapped per-
sonnel. The surcharges would affect educational institutions, hospitals,
churches and all aspects of business and industry.
Mr. McMillan outlined that the surcharges are proposed to be applied
in three areas: 1.) Free parking including on-street parking %rithout meters,
facilities including vacant lots which provide free parking spaces, shopping
centers, employee lots; 2.) Commercial lots - any facility which charges a
fee for parking; 3.) This category includes those employers who employ 100
or more people and provides 70 or more parking spaces. The regulations propose
that the average employee would pay between $2.50 and $5.00 per day for his
parking space, which, assuming that he works 250 days in a given year, would cost
him $625.00 in 1974 and $1,100.00 to $1,200.00 in 1976, to use the company park-
ing lot if other people are not riding to work with him. If two people utilize
a car for transportation, the surcharge would be reduced and if three people
or more use one car, then the surcharge is reduced to zero. HOwever, the
three or more people provision does not apply to commercial parking lots or to
free parking. Any business which provides five or more spaces for patrons will
pay the E.P.A. at the rate of $180.00 to $450.00 per space per year.
In conclusion, Mr. McMillan stated that the E.P.A. was given a charter
to do a job without restrictions and they have taken this action on November 12,
1973. The only governmental body which can limit the powers of the Environmental
Protection Agency is that which created and established its respomslbilities,
the United States Congress, by either amending the Clear Air Act of 1970 or by
placing restrictions on how the E.P.A. may attain their objectives.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that in addition to the actions indicated at
this meeting regarding this issue, the Four-City Combined-Man in Washington is
working on it; the City staff has been actively participating with the League
of California Cities and attempting to coordinate a joint statement with the
County of Orange, so that every individual and combination action available is
being utilized.
Councilman Pebley moved that the City Council authorize letters be
prepared presenting the City's position to the Environmental Protection Agency
73-991
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27? 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
regarding the proposed transportation control plans and complex sources re-
gulations; that a resolution be prepared for adoption by the City Council
indicating said position relative to the transportation control plans; and
the City be represented at the December 7, 1973 E.P.A. hearing in San Francisco
regarding complex sources regulations. Councilman Stephenson seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by Betty L. Scott for dinner
dancing place permit to allow dancing either Monday through Saturday or
Tuesday through Sunday at the hours of either 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. or 9:00
p.m. to 1:30 a.m., at B/J's, 3291Miraloma Avenue, was submitted and granted
subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as rec®m-
mended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded
by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED.
PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE - COUNCILMEN STEPHENSON; SNEEGAS AND PEBLEY: On
motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom, Councilmen Stephenson,
Sneegas and Pebley were granted permission to leave the State for 90 days,
beginning November 29, 1973. MOTION CARRIED.
PRESENTATION BY JOHN SEYMOUR REGARDING TAPES RECORDED AT AN OCTOBER 25, 1973 COALI-
TION HOMEOWNER'S MEETING: Councilman Thom introduced Mr. John Seymour who read a
prepared statement (complete copy of said statement on file in the office of
the City Clerk, dated November 27, 1973) which related that he (Mr. Seymour)
in his capacity as an Anaheim City Planning Commissioner was invited to par-
ticipate in a panel discussion at a meeting of representatives of numerous
homeowner's associations from the City of Anaheim on October 25, 1973. He
attended this meeting and expressed his views as an Anaheim Planning Commis-
sioner.
Following this meeting, on October 29, 1973, Mr. Seymour stated he
was confronted by Mayor Dutton and requested to meet in the Mayor's office at
City Hall, at which Mr. Dutton played a series of tapes which Mr. Seymour
contended were caused to be secretly recorded at the homeowner's meeting by
Mayor Dutton. At this time, according to Mr. Seymour, the Mayor charged that
the remarks made by him (Mr. Seymour) at said meeting constituted a personal
affront to him and that he was working against the best interests of the
people of Anaheim. Mr. Seymour advised that he categorically denied these
charges.
Mr. Seymour further contended that subsequent to this meeting, the
Mayor has verbally maligned and slandered him. He related the contents of
correspondence between himself and Councilman Dutton dated November 1, and
November 7, 1973, in which Mr. Seymour requested a certified copy of these
tapes and that Councilman Dutton play same in a public hearing to clear his
name.
Mr. Seymour further charged that Mayor Dutton attempted to coerce
and intimidate him as an Anaheim Planning Commissioner 'and to involve the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, of which he, Mr. Seymour, is President.
Mr. Seymour related that his efforts as President of the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce and President of Anaheim Beautiful are directed towards
the Civic objectives of those organizations as well as to build bonds of
mutual respect and high regard between city government and the citizenry.
He advised that in his four years as a Planning Commissioner, he has supported
only development of a nature which would uphold the City's standards, and re-
sult in lower density and a better environment. Mr. Seymour contended that
the Mayor has charged him with using him offices and involvement as political
tools towards his potential candidacy for City Council in 1974.
Mr. Seymour stated that if he decides to become a candidate for
City Council, his decision will be clearly and visibly announced. He further
stated that until such time as the membership of the Chamber of Commerce and
Anaheim Beautiful cease to support him as their President, he will continue
to extend his efforts to further their worthwhile and non-political, objectives.
In conclusion, Mr. Seymour again requested an unaltered copy of
the tapes in question and that these be played in the Council Chambers at an
open and public City Council meeting for the purpose of clearing his name.
73~ 92
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1973.~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Dutton responded to Mr. Seymour's charges with the state-
ment that the tapes referred to by him were openly recorded and are avmilable
to anyone who wishes to hear them. As regards the remarks which he made to
Mr. Seymour directly,'he stated he would like Mr. Sesnnour to make public those
cormments which were nothing more than that he (Mr. Seymour) is a very smooth
and articulate young man and that he handled the crowd at the meeting very
smoothly and that the meeting was a coalition of homeowner's groups interested
in a potential candidate for City Council in 1974.
Councilman Dutton vehemently denied the allegations made by Mr.
Seymour that he had attempted to malign or slander his good name.
Councilman Thom remarked that he could corroborate to a great extent
some of the allegations made by Mr. Seymour from the reverberations which have
reached him, and thereupon moved that Mr. Seymour receive an unaltered copy
of the tapes recorded at the October 25, 1973 homeowner's meeting at the Vista
Del Rio School, and that said tapes be played at an open Council meeting as
Mr. Seymour requests.
Councilman Sneegas left the meeting. (6:01 P.M.)
The aforegoing motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Pebley stated that he felt that this was a personal matter
of disagreement between Mr. Seymour and Councilman Dutton as individuals, which
does not properly come under the jurisdiction of the City Council. Further he
remarked that the Council, as abody should not become involved in such altercations.
Councilman Stephenson stated his concurrance that this is strictly
a personal issue.
Councilman Thom contended that Mayor Dutton was misusing his politi-
cal office and therefore the issue is germane.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Stephenson moved to adjourn the meeting, and to authorize
the City Clerk, in the event that there is no quorum at the December 11, 1973
meeting, to adjourn said meeting to 10:00 a.m., December 18, 1973. Councilman
Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:05 P.M.
Signed
Deputy City Clerk
C%ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCILMEN: None
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim was
called to order by the Deputy City Clerk and adjourned for lack of
a quorum to the next regular meeting, December 11, 1973, 1:30 P.M.
Adjourned: l:35 P.M.
Deputy City Clerk
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 11~ 1973; 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
PRESENT: CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim was
called to order by the City Clerk and adjourned for lack of a quorum
to Tuesday, December 18, 1973, 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Council action
of November 27, 1973.
.AdjUre d :_ 1:35 ~M.
Signed ,~;~.~.,~. Z~k-/~ City Clerk