1979/01/1679-5 3
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASST. CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
UTILITIES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
ASST. CITY ENGINNER: William G. Devitt
CITY REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Matthew Boscia
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Sergeant Jack Jansen
ASST. DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION:
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
to the Flag.
Reverend George Brown of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
119: LETTER OF CONGRATULATIONS: Mayor Seymour read and then presented a letter
of congratulations dated January 16, 1979 to Mr. lake Petrosino, Graphics Supervisor,
on the occasion of his election to the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
Board of A~ministration. Mr. Petrosino accepted the letter.
119: RESOLUTION: A resolution supporting legislation to preserve animal wildlife
was adopted by the City Council, to be forwarded to the Friends of Animals, Committee
for Humane Legislation, New York, as requested by Ms. Dione Hesketh.
"DOG SCOOPER": Mayor Seymour recounted that last week, the dog ordinance was
introduced and today he had a presentation to make of a gift bestowed upon the
Council by an Anaheim citizen, Mrs. Donna Parker, 307 N. Starfire. He felt it
was only fitting to present the gift, a "dog scooper," to Councilman Kott who
conceived the ordinance.
Councilman Kott accepted the gift and was most appreciative of it.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwo~nan Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes
of the regular meeting held Decemoer 12, 1978 were approved subject to corrections.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,309,740.75, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
79-54
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive
Session. (1:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (2:30 P.M.)
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM CLASS ACTION SUIT - DOROTHY DAUTRICH VS. BOARD OF ADMIN-
ISTRATION OF PERS: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the employment of
the firm Rutan & Tucker, Attorneys at Law, to defend the City of Anaheim in
class action suit CA-000-295, Dorothy Dautrich vs. Board of Administration of
the Public Employees' Retirement System, (Superior Court, Los Angeles County) and
authorized the City Attorney to execute a letter agreement relating thereto.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106: PRESENTATION - BUDGET BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE: Mr. Herb Leo, member of the
Budget Blue Ribbon Committee, 2906 Bellamy, referred to the report submitted by
the Committee, "Findings, Observations and Recommendations by the Budget Blue
Ribbon Committee For Consideration by Anaheim City Council" (on file in the City
Clerk's Office). He then briefed the Council on the report and read the summary
of findings and recommendations listed therein, Items 1 through 8, as well as the
summary paragraph: "In summary, all necessary data and systems appear to be
available to all management levels as a basis for sound judgments in departmental
operation and forward planning. Proposed review and revision procedures by
senior levels of staff prior to presentation of budget proposals for Council
approval and subsequently during the fiscal year appear adequate. It appears
that Anaheim is well equipped to meet the challe~ge put forth by Proposition 13."
Councilma~ Overholt then posed the following questions: Relative to Item 6
suggesting an industrial engineer, he wanted to know if that would be a consultant
or a full-time employee and whether or not the Committee felt the Council had
participated enough in the monitoring of the process?
Mr. Leo answered that with respect to Item 6, it would be well for the Council to
investigate the economics of doing it either way. Concerning the latter question,
the Committee felt the Council should become more involved in the budgeting process
so that they would be aware of what was going on. Their suggestion would be for
the Council to utilize the analysis form (last page of the report) and request
an analysis of certain programs so that they could develop percentages and analyze
each program somewhat better than in the past.
Mayor Seymour commented that the form was an excellent one providing a capsulized
comparison without which it would take hours for the Council to calculate differences.
He then asked if the illustration used on the form represented an actual program;
Mr. Bruce Grant, Budget Blue Ribbon Committee member answered that it was taken
from actual records although he did not recall which department it represented.
Mayor Seymour then continued that what it showed was the budget when compared to
1977-78 acutal expenditures, that for 1978-79, a 131.6% increase was projected on
labor alone and on that particular program, including man hours, hourly rate and
services, there was a 28.8% increase over last year's budget. Those were significant
increases, and he wanted to know if the Committee had ascertained why that occured.
Mr. Leo explained that in using the particular set of numbers, they were not
trying to identify any particular program. However, they did not feel they had
enough time to analyze the budget to that degree.
79-55
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Grant stated that the illustration was not an isolated case, but it did
represent some of the trends in the budget which was approved last year in
comparison to the actual 1977-78 financial numbers.
For clarification, the Mayor stated as he understood, they worked on a number
of departments, using the form for comparison purposes, and found in other programs
similar significant increases, percentage wise.
Mr. Grant stated that was correct. He believed there were some 200 separate
departments and perhaps 12, the number they analyzed, was not a large sample.
However, for the time the Committee had to spend on the project, they felt it
was enough to prepare and recommend that the form be used for preparing next
year's budget.
The Mayor stated that the form was extremely good and could be most helpful for
the Council to get a basic understanding without having to chase numbers. He
was of the opinion that it was a good form, not only to be used by staff, but also
if it were contained in the budget document by department, it would be very helpful
and enlightening to the Council.
The Mayor then referred to Item 4 of the report recommending that a formal cost
reduction program be instituted. He wanted to know how that could be done.
Mr. Grant answered it was merely establishing goals in writing and devising a
form or two on which to capture the significant data required to know historically
what was spent in a particular area. He then g~Jc an example of how that w~s
accomplishel in private enterprise. They had a form wherein they captured the
supplier, quality of product, annual quantity used, and the unit price. They
would then come up with the total annual dollar figure to be used and subsequently
propose recommendations as to how to reduce those dollar expenditures for the
year. They were then passed before the purchasing and accounting departments and
anyone else involved in the approval. If approved, they then implemented that
cost reduction. He also believed they should then be measured or quantified on
some kind of track record or graph whereby it was possible to accumulate the
total cost reduction implemented for the year.
Assistant City Manager William Hopkins stated that they were doing that on an
informal basis and the Committee was saying that they should take the process one
step further and make it more formal. They were in the process of trying to
build in some measurement capabilities. The City was a labor intensive service
organization, thus making ~t more difficult to provide the quantitative types of
things done in industry where a ~=~oduct was produced that was tangible.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Hopkins saw any problem in providing the Council with
monthly statements as recommended.
Mr. Hopkins stated there would be no problem in so doing.
Mayor Seymour continued that relative to recommendation number eight, referring
to Data Processing about which he had been outspoken, he was sensitive to the
statement, "A clear cut decision should be made whether or not the City of Anaheim
79-56
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
is willing to assume the entire investment risk for hardware, software and
facility." It had been his opinion that it was a very risky business for a
public entity to be in, and he wanted more background as to how and why the
committee came to the conclusion or recommendation that they did.
Mr. Leo answered that what had concerned them was that the City had no long-
term commitments from users, while making a large investment and providing the
capability; Mayor Seymour stated that was what he had been saying for a long time.
The Mayor continued that when he first read the report, he was looking toward
some specific recommendations as to how in the next budget year they could live
with the Spirit of 13, and he did not see those in the report. On the other hand,
and in positive thinking, it was his feeling that the committee provided the
tool to enable the Council to do just that, if they wished to do so. He believed
that the committee did an outstanding job and service for the City. He expressed
his appreciation for their efforts and looked forward to implementation of the
recommendations.
Councilman Roth stated first that he had a question about MDS that was, hoWever,
answered in the report and secondly, he asked Assistant City Manager Hopkins for
his comments relative to the review form, which he highly supported, since it would
be of great assistance to the Council.
Mr. Hopkins stated that any tool that would assist the Council in analyzing the
budgetary process was helpful. He then explained other tools that would be of
assistance and concluded that they should be looking at cost of services as
they were produced, toss them out and set trends. Eventually the Council should
also haxe those trends to look at to see where they were headed in terms of
actual costs per unit of service produced, program by program.
Councilman Roth stated that one of the main reasons for the committee was due to
criticism over the fact that no one could read the budget because of its complexity.
He wanted to know in adopting a review form program, how that would simplify the
budget format.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that they would plan to issue to the Council
a supplementary document to use in addition to the main document, thereby providing
an individual summary to go with the budget, program by program, and control center
by control center.
The Mayor asked why they could not be supplied with a form Just like the one
submitted in the report which would involve only twelve pieces of paper, one
for each department; Mr. Hopkins stated there would be no problem in supplying
that summary sheet for each department.
Councilman Roth reiterated that was his point, he wanted to satisfy those critics
of the previous budget documents who complained of complexity. It would now be
broken down and thus, become more simplified.
79-5 7
_City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then referred to Item 8(c) limiting Data Processing facilities
and commitments to meet the needs of the City of Anaheim only. If that were to
be done, she questioned if that would mean there would be more down time on the
City's existing hardware and, if so, she believed it would be more efficient to
have other uses in order to have the hardware utilized to its capacity.
Mr. Leo answered that the recommendation would create more down time and that was
why in 8(a) they recommended the creation of a joint powers authority with other
municipalities since that would be the most cost effective. However, it would
require a commitment from the City's users for a long enough period of time.
Councilman Overholt inquired as to whether they were to presume that the committee
found that the program budgets and elements and capital investment budgets were
not prioritized.
Mr. Leo answered "no" and continued that he believed it essential to have some kind
of ranking system. In private industry, they had to rank their capital expenditures
and by so doing, were able to eliminate those which they could not afford in a
particular year.
Councilman Overholt stated that he thought, 'in essence, that was being done in the
City except that the Council, in the final presentation, did not see that prior-
itization. Perhaps what was being suggested was that the Council be given that
information as they reviewed the Manager's final budget.
City Manager William Talley stated that he bell=red Mr. Leo described the iaternal
administrative process his company used and the City used very much the same. It
would be possible to present the Council with all capital projects, but it would
be an unbalanced budget, and the Charter required that it be balanced.
Councilman Kott believed it was a fallacy to compare the private sector with the
government because the government did not have to show a profit and thus, in
his opinion, the two were not analagous~ He, too, was looking for more definitive
items in the report enabling him to act on them, rather than generalizations. What
they were recon~nending was the opposite of what was being done as indicated on
the program budget review form. As well, on one hand they recommended a budget
method starting at zero expenditure, which he personally favored, but that was
not what was being done.
Mr. Grant answered that they found that partially implemented, but they felt it
should be performed on all significant accounts.
Councilman Kott then questioned how they viewed the recommendation of an industrial
engineer vs. Arthur Young & Company.
Mr. Grant answered what they envisioned was that the industrial engineer's function
could be one which actually analyzed labor performance. They felt that an indus-
trial engineer, whether time or motion study or the like, would depend on the
department involved or perhaps it could be work methods analysis that would turn
out to be a better flow of paper work. They felt it was something that should be
looked at and probably the City employees could best determine whether it should be
done or not,
79-58
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Leo pointed out as indicated in Item 6 that City staff was performing
industrial engineering analysis to some degree at this time.
Councilman Kott then commented on some other aspects of the report, in particular
the Data Processing situation (Item 8). He explained that the City had sky-
rocketing costs in Data Processing and he did not think it belonged in the
area of government. He did not believe that the Data Processing enterprise was
really an assest to the City in terms of cost effectiveness and if a joint powers
authority was created, Data Processing costs would escalate even more so.
Mr. Grant stated if it was a question as to whether or not Data Processing was of
a size to fit City needs, it was so. His company had data processing just for
themselves amd there were also different packages available; Councilman Kott
stated that might be a good recommendation to follow.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and was going to pursue the issue of Data
Processing; Councilman Kott asked the Mayor to have Councilwoman Kaywood wait
until he was finished.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (3:20 P.M.)
Councilman Kott then stated that he would like to see budget figures going back
more than one year since it would be more meaningful to see figures for at least
two years and perhaps three; Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that they were
working in that direction.
In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that he believed the work of the committee
culminated into their belief that the business community in Anaheim was interested
in their government and willing to help them do a better job. They had given the
Council guideposts with which to work and on behalf of the Council, he expressed
their sincere appreciation.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber (3:23 P.M.) and wanted to ask Mr.
Leo some questions before he left. She first stated she was not reading some
of the remarks made by Councilman Kott from the report presented. She then asked
if Mr. Leo felt the City was doing a good job at present.
Mr. Leo stated they did feel the City was doing a good job.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that relative to the comments made by Councilman Kott,
she did not see the criticisms in the report that he was referring to. Regarding
Data Processing, she asked if they were to have a smaller package to serve in
Anaheim only, would that cost more than what was presently being done?
Mr. Leo explained that they did not make an analysis on that basis. What they
tried to point out in commenting on the MDS computer operation was that it could
be done with a system that would just meet the needs of Anaheim. If a more
sophisticated program was involved, the City would have to consider selling time
on the computer on the outside. However, if that was done, it was necessary to
get protection so that the City would not be making all the investment with no
customer investment.
79-59
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then questioned whether the recommendation was a criticism;
Mr. Leo answered no it was not intended to be. Councilwoman Kaywood then
thanked everyone for having given their time to the project and the analysis,
with which she was very pleased.
Mayor Seymour stated that, in his opinion, what Councilwoman Kaywood had just
done was to attempt to politicize the committee and he could not let that slip by.
He did not know how any committee of businessmen could come to a conclusion that
the City was doing a good job and that was not stated in the report. According
to the City's own staff-developed figures, the City had a 50.65% increase in the
budget last year. He reiterated, he did not see anywhere in the report where
it stated the City was doing a good job, but instead it stated, "The program
budget and control system presently used by the City of Anaheim can be effective
in planning, controlling and reviewing City expenditures."
Mr. Leo stated that was the opinion of the committee; Councilwoman Kaywood asked
if it was effective. Mr. Leo stated that they did not have enough time to
analyze that, but the program budget review form submitted would indicate if that
type of analysis were used by the staff, another report, such as the one they
submitted, would never have to be submitted to the Council again.
Councilman Overholt then asked Mr. Leo if he felt the opinion of the committee was
that City staff was doing a good job in carrying out the directive that had been
given to them by the Council, and if there was something wrong, it was the responsi-
bility of the Council to monitor and change the course.
Mr. Leo a~,swered yes on both counts.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-22 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Melvin and Marriam E. Schantz, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000
(SC) on Portion A, and from RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-5000(SC) on Portion B, on
property l~cated southeast of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and
Imperial Highway, approximately 675 feet north of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-277 declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the provisions California Environmental Quality Act and
further denied Reclassification No. 78-79-22.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Melvin and Marriam Schantz
and public hearings scheduled January 2, 1979 and continued to this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts annou~ced that a request had been received from the
applicant's attorney to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to refer the matter back to the Planning Con~nission
as requested by the applicant's attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor first asked if anyone was present to speak on
the matter.
Mr. Hans Gowa acknowledged that he was present to speak to the application.
79-60
C__ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour abstained.
The Mayor explained that his abstention was due to the fact that he occupied
office space in the shopping center adjacent to the subject property. He then
suggested that Mr. Gowa delay his input until the public hearing before the
Planning Commission.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONbiENT NO. 78-10A: In accordance with application filed
by Arthur N. Ramey, Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, public hearing was held on
proposed abandonment of a portion of a dedicated roadway commonly known as Rio
Vista Street, south of Wagner Street to the Rancho Line, pursuant to Resolution
No. 78R-837 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated November 28, 1978 and the recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted, recoramending approval of said abandonment,
subject to the reservation of a public utility easement by the City's Electrical
Division.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council ratified the determinotion
of the Planning Director that the proposed ac+' ~ity falls withing the definition
of Secticn 3.01 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environn:ental Impact Report and is therefore categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-24 for adoption approving Abandonment
No. 78-10A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ;aNAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF RIO VISTA STREET SOUTHERLY OF WAGNER
AVENUE. (78-10A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
~OIi ~!
The Mayor deClared Resolution No. 78R-24 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-23 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1919
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Jafar Jahanpanah and Hossein Tavakoli,
for a change in zone from RS-10,000 to CL, to permit a motel with an accessory
restaurant on property located at 1581 West Katella Street with a waiver of
maximum structual height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-280, disapproved a
Negative Declaration for the subject property and thus they would not be exempt
79-61
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and further, denied
Reclassification No. 78-79-23.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-281 denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 1919.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Jafar Jahanpanah, and
public hearing was scheduled this date.
Ms. Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses and outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the
City Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that page two of the Resolution for Reclassification,
Items 4 and 5, the wording indicated approval rather than denial; Ms. Santalahti
explained that was an error.
The Mayor asked if the applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard.
The applicant stated he was present, but his agent had not yet arrived.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour seconded by Councilman Kott the matter
was continued to 4:00 P.M. to await the arrival of the applicant's agent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Later in ~he meeting the applicant's agent arrived (4:30 P.M.) and the Mayor
explained that a presentation had already been made by staff.
Mr. Dar Eshani, project engineer, stated that their request to build a motel was
previously denied by the Planning Commission. When he started to draw the
plans, he was not familiar with how to proceed and thus he did not consider the
setback. Before they were given a chance, their application was denied. He
simply accepted that because he felt he did not do it in the proper manner. How-
ever, his colleagues did not accept that and felt they should be given a chance to
redo the plan and resubmit it and that was the purpose today. As well, the last
time it was indicated that it would not be beneficial for his client to build a
motel at the subject location. He stated it was their problem if they wanted to
build at that location and they had done a good deal of foot work through various
agencies where they were assured that was the right area to build their project.
continued that in order to make the project satisfactory for the neighbors, they
were prepared to compromise in terms of green area or whatever the City would
impose upon them. They were also prepared to have a setback of 25 feet.
He
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Joe Bryan, 1582 West Sumac stated that he owned the property to the rear of
the proposed motel and restaurant. He first stated that when pulling permits
from the Building Department, it was necessary at that time to submit plans for
building. He was certain that the Building Department informed the applicant
79-62
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
that he would be required to have a 34-foot setback. The agent was stating that
they would compromise at 25 feet; however, that compromise did not meet the code
which required 34 feet, and the applicant would not be appeasing the neighbors by
his proposed compromise. Mr. Bryan explained that 10 feet from his back fence to
where the proposed building would be located, there was going to be a 17-foot
structure, and he could not find that acceptable.
Mr. Bryan then read a prepared statement first protesting the construction of a
motel and restaurant proposed to be built on Katella Avenue and asking the City
Council to deny the project. The major points of opposition were: although he
respected the right of the applicant to build, he was asking that his rights also
be respected to be able to live in an environment free from interference of the
presence of a motel and restaurant directly at his back door. Such a project
would disrupt the lifestyle of those residents who made up the community and who
were taxpayers in that vicinity. The community as a whole would not benefit by
having residential zoning turned into commercial. It would not relieve their
taxes, and it would not offer a service that would be of benefit to them. He also
maintained that to build a motel in a location so far removed from the Disneyland
area would not be economically viable. The building of a motel in a residential
area would have an adverse effect on that residential area and the problems re-
suiting would be loss of property value, noise, pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
excessive lighting, loss of privacy and an increased crime rate. He then referred
to the petition signed by approximately 40 people which had been submitted to the
Planning Commission in opposition to the proposal and the granting of the Reclass-
ification and Conditional Use Permit. He again urged the Council to deny the
application. They should first consider the taxpayers in the area who make up
the community and bus~ness people from outside the City, second.
Mr..John Butts, 1565 Sumac also located to the rear of the subject property stated
that theirs was a residential area and the influx of a motel would totally discour-
age the residents living there because of the environment that would be created.
He suggested that the applicant should have taken a survey in the neighborhood
before going to other agencies to ask their advice relative to location.
Mr. Hossein Tavakoli, one of the two owners of the land, stated that he lived in
Villa Park. He decided to build a motel in the subject location because he could
not find land near Disneyland and there was always a shortage of motels in the area,
especially during peak seasons. His sons would subsequently manage the motel since
they had been educated in business and motel management. He stated, however, that
even if one of the neighbors did not like the motel project, he would not insist upon
building it there, because the neighbors must be satisfied. If it was too close to
them, he would move it further back. If it was going to cause difficulties, they
were ready to cancel out. They were also ready to present a new plan, if necessary,
and they would build a superior motel and restaurant.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Tavakoli seemed to want to be very cooperative in the
development of his property and to be a good neighbor. The concern expressed by
the residents was that it was the wrong location for a motel. He then asked Mr.
Tavakoli when he indicated he would like to work something out, would he then
consider building something other than a motel?
79-63
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Tavakoli stated he thought it was a good project for his sons to manage but
if there was any difficulty involved, they were to think more about the project
and perhaps change it to some other commercial use.
The Mayor noted that Mr. Tavakoli lived in Villa Park. He supposed if a motel
was going to be built in Villa Park adjacent to a residential area, the people of
the neighborhood would also be approaching their council, stating that they did
not want a motel close to where they lived. There was nothing wrong with a motel,
but if placed in the wrong neighborhood, that would cause problems to that residen-
tial neighborhood. That was the problem they were involved with today.
Mr. Eshani asked if they could now request another use of the property for an
office building.
The Mayor stated the Council was not in the business of planning and designing and
it would be necessary to ask him to work with Ms. Santalahti and the Planning
Commission in redesigning a different use of the property and to submit it before
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Eshani recalled he had read in the minutes where there was a reclassification
from residential to commercial on the property; Ms. Santalahti stated the property
was rezoned a couple of years prior to CL, but at that time, restrictions were placed
thereon which effectively made it commercial-office zoning.
Mayor Seymour confirmed that the applicant could come in with CO without a public
hearing if they met the requirements and stanC_~ds. Councilwoman Kaywood added,
and no waivers.
Ms. Santalahti pointed out, however, that a 34-foot setback would still be required
with a 17-foot building.
Councilman Roth emphasized to the applicant and agent that a 34-foot setback would
be required and not 25 feet.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATUS: On motion
by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that the
project will have a significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact on the environment and would not be exempt from the requirement to prepare
an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-31 and 79R-32, denying Reclassi-
fication No. 78-79-23 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1919, respectively. (Refer
to Resolution Book)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (78-79-23)
79-64
City Hall~,,, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.~.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1919.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-31 and 79R-32 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, request for
cancellation of the deed restrictions on the property located at 1581 West Katella
Avenue was denied. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Council
recessed for 10 minutes. (3:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:45 P.M.)
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized as recommended:
a. 160: Bid No. 3492 - URD Wire - Award to General Electric Supply, $56,487.40.
b. i64: Continued the award of Hidden Canyon Reservoir Contract (Account No.
51-619-7105-92180-31200) to January 23, 1979.
c. 164: Continued the award of Hidden Canyon Pumping Station (Account No.
51-619-7105-92180-32420) to January 23, 1979.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 79R-42 and Resolution Nos. 79R-25 and 79R-26 for adoption, as recommended
by the City Engineer, the Executive Director of Community Development, and the
Chief of Police, respectively. Refer to Resolution Book.
150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FUR2~ISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: PERALTA CANYON PARK SPORTS FIELD AND PARKING LOT LIGHTING,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-805-7103-000.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF A CITY
EMPLOYEE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
(Gustavo Duran, additional year commencing January 17, 1979)
79-65
City H.all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
WITH BARBARA L. TORRES IN CONNECTION WITH HANDWRITING AND DOCUMENT EXAMINATION
SERVICES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-42 and Resolution Nos. 79R-25 and 79R-26
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123: CALIFORNIA COMPUTER PRODUCTS - RESCISSION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
TRAF~'iC SIGNAL INSTALLATION COSTS: Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the amount covered
all city labor costs that went into the project.
City Engineer William Devitt explained that it covered all recorded costs by the
Engineering Division.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-27 for adoption as recommended in mem-
orandum dated January 5, 1979 from the City Engineer approving the rescission of
an agreement with California Computer Products, Inc., for reimbursement of traffic
signal installation costs and accepting $757.40 as full payment for preli~ainary
engineering expended by the City. Refer to R~oolution Book.
123: RE~OLUTION NO. 79R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE RESCISSION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAFFIC
SIGNAL INSTALLATION COSTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT OF RESCISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA COMPUTER
PRODUCTS, INC.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, ROth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-27 duly passed and adopted.
123: MAGNOLIA AVENUE STORM DRAIN FACILITY: Councilman Kott offered Resolution
No. 79R-28 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 2, 1979 from
the City Engineer, approving an agreement with Berryman and Stephenson, Inc. for
the design of the Magnolia Avenue Storm Drain Facility in the amount of $28,400.
Refer to Resolution Book.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH BERRYMAN &
STEPHENSON, INC., TO FURNISH ENGINEERING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Magnolia Avenue Storm
Drain Facility)
79-66
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-28 duly passed and adopted.
158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: (West side of Western Avenue, north of Lincoln)
Councilman Kaywood asked if there was another neighbor on the other side of the
subject property.
City Engineer Devitt stated there may be, but the adjacent property owner indicated
an interest in purchasing the property.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained if there was something between two houses and both
adjacent owners would be eligible or could use it, she wanted to be certain that
the other person was also notified.
Mr. Devitt replied that he was certain Matt Boscia, Senior Real Property Repre-
sentative, had contacted all owners.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 12, of the City of Anahiem ~uidelines to the requirements for
an Environmantal Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-29 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated December 26, 1978 from the then City Engineer
James Maddoz, authorizing the sale of the subject property to the adjoining
property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Don Heydendahl, for the appraised value of $1,500, and
authorizing execution of a grant deed therefor upon receipt of said sum. Refer
to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO MR. AND MRS. DON
HEYDENDAHI~.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman K0tt asked who paid for the appraisal and
what was the cost of that apprai,.al.
Mr. Talley stated that the report indicated that it was based upon an appraisal
submitted by Dennis Pike dated December 4, 1978. The appraisal was not included,
but if the Council preferred to have it before voting, he would provide it.
Councilman Kott noted if the City did an appraisal and it cost more than $1,500,
he would be opposed, unless the buyer was willing to pay for the appraisal.
City Manager asked to withdraw the item until Councilman Kott's question could
be answered, as well as the next item to be considered which was similar and in
anticipation Of the same question.
79-6 7
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Matt Boscia spoke to the matter and reported that all of
the property owners were contacted and given an opportunity to express their
interest in purchasing and all refused except for the adjoining owner. In the
initial contact, they offered $900 to purchase the property. The appraisal cost was
$380 and the property was appraised at $1,500. They again contacted the adjoining
owner and he agreed to purchase it at that price. The appraisal established the
price and the City paid for the appraisal.
Councilman Kott asked if there was anyone on staff who could have done the appraisal.
Mr. Boscia answered yes, but his understanding was that the Council wanted appraisals
to be performed on the outside to avoid a conflict of interest.
Mayor Seymour stated that Mr. Boscia was correct, but in an attempt to obtain an
unbiased and unprejudiced opinion of value, they were remiss because a $1,500
appraisal costs $380. After taking action on the present issue, he was going to
suggest a process to permit staff to perform appraisals.
Councilman Overholt posed several questions to Mr. Boscia after which he concluded
that the economics of the transaction were positive although it might have been a
accomplished without spending $380.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
SOUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-29 duly passed and adopted.
158: SALE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY: (a portion of Old Santa Aha Canyon Road)
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Boscia explained that there was no appraisal
done on the property and it involved an offer presented by the property owner
indicating that $6,750 was all he would be willing to pay for the excess right
of way.
Councilman Kott wanted to know how it was determined whether or not there should be
an appraisal.
Mr. Boscia explained there was no fee title involved and generally it would have
been handled by the abandonment of the roadway. Inasmuch as there was a title
problem in that area, he contacted the developer and discussed the matter with him.
He reiterated that was all he was willing to pay for the excess right of way for
whatever title the City might have in it, the final result being that he might
end up with nothing.
Mayor Seymour stated that any appraisal on the property would then have to indicate
that it was subject to fee simple title; Councilman Roth stated that it was a token
for a quitclaim deed, but that such a deed would not halt any other action being
taken by anyone on the way. The situation was a unique one.
79-68
~itZ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked if there might be any other possible owner interested
in the parcel.
Mr. Boscia answered that Mr. Asawa was the adjoining owner and there were no others.
He again stated that no fee title was involved, but if so, they would try to determine
if the figure offered was reasonable, and if not, they would obtain an appraisal.
There was in fact a risk on the part of the buyer.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 12, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirement
for an Environmental Impact Report and is therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-30 for adoption authorizing the sale of
the subject property to Ric Development Company for the sum of $6,750 and authorizing
the City Engineer to initiate abandonment proceedings thereon upon receipt of said
sum and the execution of a quitclaim deed upon completion of said abandonment pro-
ceedings, as recommended in a memorandum dated December 27, 1978 from the then City
Engineer James Maddox.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO RIC DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-30 duly passed and adopted.
158: ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY AS TO WHEN A APPRAISAL SHOULD BE OBTAINED: Council-
man Seymour moved to direct the City Manager to submit a report relative to estab-
lishing a policy as to when an appraisal should be obtained on City property for
sale. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor suggested if the cost should be over 5% of what
they assumed the value to be, it was getting out of line. If an appraisal was
necessary, then the potential buyer should pay for it.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that would depend on whether or not it was an axpensive
piece of property; Councilman Roth suggested that when values of $1,500 to $2,000
were involved, an appraisal might be obtained°
The Mayor stated he was certain that on very expensive parcels of property, there
would be an appraisal; however, it was on those small parcels where it was
questionable as to whether or not an appraisal should be obtained.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
79-69
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
153: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROGRAM - 1978 EMPLOYEES SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM: Mayor
Seymour stated that the annual Employees Banquet was eliminated from the Service
Award Program and extracted from the 1978-79 budget. However, at the work session
it was intended that the award items be presented to employees on the job at the
work site.
City Manager Talley explained for Councilman Kott that the $7,000 was used for
certain service awards and they varied dependent upon the length of service, but
averaged $25 per award; Personnel Director Garry McRae also further explained
the program.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, $7,000
was appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund to the Employees Benefits Program
to cover the cost of the 1978 Employees Service Awards. MOTION CARRIED.
153: REQUEST FOR CITY TIME OFF WHILE SERVING ON THE PERS BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION AS
CONTRACT AGENCY MEMBER REPRESENTATIVE: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on
memorandum dated January 11, 1979 from the Personnel Director listing four recommen-
dations relative to Mr. Jake Petrosino's participation on the PERS Board of Administra-
tion on City time (memorandum on file in the City Clerk's office).
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve Item No. 3 only authorizing Mr. Petrosino
to assist City staff in activities relating to PERS. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. McRae stated tha~ .t was necessary to approve recommen-
dation No. 1 authorizing payment of wages for Mr. Petrosino to participate on the
PERS Board of Administration as the Contract Agency Member Representative.
Mr. Talley stated that he could authorize that, and he would do so.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: RESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY SERIVCES BOARD: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the resignation of Mr. Harry M. "Hap" Bayley III from
the Community Services Board was accepted with regret and staff requested to send
a letter of appreciation to Mr. Bayley. MOTION CARRIED.
105: PAC SEAT DECLARED VACANT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, the Project Area Committee (PAC) seat held by the late Dirk Bode was
declared vacant. MOTION CARRIED.
153: PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND ANNUAL b~DICAL EXAMINATIONS - 1979-80: (Continued from
January 9, 1979) City Manager Talley first stated that he was advised by Mr. Jansen
of the Anaheim Police Association (APA) that their Association was the only one
concerned relative to the subject.
Mr. Jansen, President of the APA, 508 North Anaheim Boulevard, stated that when
they were first approached by the Personnel Department, they were told that the
matter of their annual physicals were being put out to bid. It was then determined
and it appeared to them that the lowest bidder was considered and that was the only
criteria taken into consideration. They then polled the membership of the Association
79-70
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
and they wanted to stay with the Golden West Medical Clinic (Dr. Royce Whittier)
who had performed all their physicals in the past. The reason they wished to do so
was that Dr. Whittier was one of the first doctors who gave pre-employment
physicals. Golden West Medical Clinic had since become the "family doctor" of
many members of the Association, and they had great faith in the Clinic.
Mr. Jansen explained that they had special problems in taking their annual physicals
because approximately one-half of their membership had to take their off-duty time
to do so. Now it was only a matter of making a phone call to the Clinic to set up
an appointment or to have it changed if necessary. Any change to someone new would
not be in the best interest of their membership at this time. As well, any
difference in cost could be handled by the Clinic. He gave as an example a situation
where he had to receive therapy and Golden West arranged for him to receive that
therapy at Anaheim High School, and it was done at no charge, whereas such therapy
would normally have to be paid for by the City. He stated further that they did not
think that the Acacia Medical Clinic was of the size that could handle physicals as
rapidly as Golden West. When an officer was off duty and sent for an annual physical,
the City paid that officer time and one-half for the time spent at the Clinic. There-
fore, less time would be spent at a bigger Clinic. Thus, the difference in the bids
of approximately $8,000 could be saved on therapy and overtime.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the annual physicals were done for the City at Acacia,
was there any reason why the Police could not keep the same family doctor at Golden
West.
Mr. Jansen answered there was no reason why they could not keep their own doctors
and if tbay were injured on duty, they could still go to the Medical Center on the
panel, lhe point was, there was a personal relationship with the doctors to the
extent where they could trust the doctor's opinion relative to their annual physicals.
He reiterated, in polling the membership, well over one-half preferred to remain
with the same doctor they had been going to. In talking with Personnel, they did
not believe the Association should have a voice in the decision since the City was
paying the bill. He emphasized that it was not going to cost any more with the type
of program set up at Golden West. Ever since he could remember the City had been
with Dr. Whittier or Dr. Ninburg. They wanted to have continuity with the same
doctor because a physical examination was a very personal thing.
Councilman Roth stated that he was sympathetic to what Mr. Jansen was saying and
he too would also feel m~re comfortable with a doctor with whom he had been
dealing with, over someone who was not familiar with his file.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Jansen why the Fire Association did not feel the
same as the APA.
Mr. Jansen explained that they had a new Board of Directors who had just taken
over, and they were not organized presently to investigate the matter, and they did
not want to make the approach to the City Council at this time. However, they
had originally indicated they were going to be present today. The Fire Association
posed a different situation since they were on duty for a 24-hour period. The
whole engine company would go at one time, and the Clinic did not want to tie up
a whole company for any length of time.
79-71
City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Committee had taken into consideration the
background of the various employees who had been going to Dr. Whittier for
some years?
Mr. McRae answered that essentially they took into consideration the adequacy of
the facility and the cost. He then briefed the Council on memorandum dated
December 20, 1978 which explained how the recommendation was arrived at in
finality.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Anaheim Clinic had a higher score than Golden
West, as far as facilities were concerned.
Councilman Roth stated when there was a committee selection such as that conducted,
that the major focus was on the technical aspect, rather than the human element. He
had to agree with the APA's philosophy in wanting to feel comfortable with the
physician attending them.
Mr. McRae explained that tbe City Council directed the Personnel Department two
and a half years prior to go out to bid on the subject examination. Initially,
Golden West had the low bid and the Council agreed to stay with them, but the
Council also directed Personnel to periodically review the matter and thus they
went through the process again this year, knowing full well that they were satisfied
with the work that had been performed by Golden West during the two years of their
agreement with the C£ty. However, they were under Council mandate to perform the
process. If the Council's desire was to stay with Golden West on the basis discussed
today, Pe~sonnel would be supportive of that dacision. He suggested if that be the
case, tha~ the Council then modify its policy to indicate that they should negotiate
costs in two years with Golden West or the present carrier. At that time, they
could submit a report to the Council relative to the Clinic's performance and ask
the Council if they wished to stay with the Clinic or submit to the proposal proce-
dure. He was not certain as to how to proceed two years hence.
Mr. McRae then answered questions posed by Councilman Roth and Councilwoman
Kaywood for purposes of clarification after which Councilman Kott pointed out that
a place such as Acacia had offices scattered throughout the area and they had
physicians that would come and go. A patient might have one doctor one time and
another the next. In dealing with Golden West, there were people who had been there
for many years and they could be counted on to be there and that was an important
consideration. ~e also took exception to Mr. McRae's statement that the Council
had to change and sugge~ted that possibly he and the City Manager had to change
in their reporting tact~cs~ U~, maintained all of the figures in the report, except
cost, were arbitrary and perce~ages were attached with no basis whatsoever. He
asked how did they determine t]~e quality aspect of the program.
Mr. McRae answered that it was based on visitations to the facilities by the sub-
committee and the criteria used was accessiblity, general appearance, adequate
organization and staff, medical competence, etc.
Councilman Kott asked Mr. Jansen how the APA felt about the possibility of having
a choice between clinics or should it be restricted to one?
79-72
.C~ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jansen answered that they had no objection to being given a choice.
MOTION: Councilman Kott stated that in view of the fact that both of the clinics
had men who had been associated with the ownership for many years and also were
within $500 to $1000 of each other, he moved that the Ninburg Clinic (Anaheim
Medical Clinic), as well as the Whittier Clinic (Golden West Medical Clinic), be
designated as those clinics to perform pre-employment and annual medical exam-
inations for certain employees for 1979-80. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. McRae how the proposal
would affect the City's cost if the business was given to two clinics, rather
than one.
Mr. McRae stated he did not know if the proposal would stand, since each would
only be getting a part of the business. He suggested however that the Council
designate one or the other or the third, Acacia, as the organization with whom
the City should do business for pre-employment examinations so that those could
be done with one agency. That was his primary concern. He suspected there would
be some additional cost in operating and in determining who would go to which clinic.
He did not believe there would be monumental costs that could not be overcome. He
did feel strongly that pre-employment physicals should be handled by one organization,
and it was necessary to have consistent application. Their first recommendation
was Acacia and if it was elected to take the business back to Golden West or Dr.
Ninburg, he recommended Golden West as being that part of the carrier. They might
also divide the annual physicals for both Police and Fire. Me also respectfully
requested that relative to the annual physicals given primarily to some hazard
workers in the Utilities and Public Works Departments and for drivers licenses, that
they be permitted to schedule those all in one facility because they were not
dealing in large numbers.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would create more administrative work and confusion
if more than one clinic was involved.
Mr. McRae answered that it would obviously make more work, but he could not
represent it as being confusing. They would have to take a survey to find out
where the employees wanted to go and, thus, any additional step in the process would
create more work.
Mayor Semour stated the intent of the motion was to go with Golden West and Anaheim
Medical Clinic, and Mr. McRae was saying that it could affect the cost; Mr. McRae
emphasized the word "could".
The Mayor thereupon recommended to the maker of the motion and the second that it
would perhaps be appropriate to ask Mr. McRae to contact both Golden West and
Anaheim Medical to be certain that the cost was not going to go up and subsequently
submit his recommendations relative to where to send people for pre-employement
examinations.
Councilman Roth and Kott agreed to the amendment. Councilman Kott stated however
that it was not to give the bureaucracy the easiest way to do something, but to give
the recipients of that medical care a choice. That was the reason why Mr. Jansen
was present.
79-73
City ~all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Mayor Seymour stated he believed the Council was sensitive to the
situation and if they could balance that off with cost effectivenes, they should
do so. He thereupon moved that the matter be continued one week with the under-
standing that the City Manager and the Personnel Director would speak with Golden
West and Anaheim Medical Clinic to determine if the cost of their proposals would
increase if the business were split between them, and subsequently submit to the
Council recommendations relative to pre-employment examinations and whatever other
administrative recommendations there might be along those lines. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. McRae clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
City was presently only utilizing Golden West. As well, the Mayor was suggesting
that they ask if each would perform half of the business for the rate given in
their proposals, and if they were going to raise the rates because of that. He
also asked that the Council entertain a recommendation from staff that the
administrative examination they were required to give as part of an ongoing
employment process be allocated to one clinic or the other.
Councilman Overholt stated he would support the motion but wanted to find out why
they lost the clinic that was rated the highest in terms of facilities and had
the lowest bid.
Mr. McRae explained that the two facilities who did the most private business with
the employees were Dr. WhittJ~er and Ninburg's facilities. As Sgt. Jansen explained
to him, those were the two organizations in which their membership was most interested
and that one or the other be retained. Therefore, he was accepting that as the
criteria that they would deal with those two organizations now that Acacia and
Heffner were excluded.
Mayor Seymour stated that his intent was to try and move the matter ahead and he
sensed fro~ Councilmen Kott and Roth that more should be taken into consideration
than just dollars.
Councilman Overholt asked then if he discounted entirely the rating in terms of
quality of facilities.
Mayor Seymour answered no, but that they were moving from the factual analysis to
a position of saying that the cost had to be reasonable, but human beings were
involved, and they wanted to take that aspect into consideration as well.
Councilman Overholt stated it was obvious to him that the plan was set up to
attempt to obtain suitable service for a suitable figure and perhaps the problem
was that employee groups were not consulted. Things had moved rapidly and now
the clinic originally selected was totally out of the picture. He happened to
know some of the people connected with the other clinic also, but he would
support the motion for further study.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a concern she had was that if people were not
assigned to specific clinics, how was it possible to know how many would be going
to one or the other, and it would not necessarily be one-half.
79-74
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. McRae stated as he understood, half the physicals would be performed in each
facility.
Councilman Overholt stated that one of the problems was that members of the Safety
Committee were not sensitive to the feelings of the employee groups and that is
what raised the question.
Mr. McRae stated that they viewed the annual medical examination as a City
determinant used for a number of reasons, and it was not a fringe benefit. They
had taken the position that they were not jointly administering the program
with employee organizations. Council direction today was substantially different
than that. He stated as an example that one of the requirements of a Senior
Master Patrolman in the Police Department was that they pass their annual physical.
They took the position if the employee went to a doctor for his own medical treat-
ment, that was one thing, but it did not seem appropriate for the employee to go
to his family physician and have him make a judgment about his annual physical
that could have an impact on the employee's rate of pay. The examination was part
of the condition of employment, and employees were required to have that annual
examination.
The Mayor stated that Mr. McRae should not misread the intent of the motion. It
was not to give away a right, but to be sensitive to the human aspect if it was
consistent with the objective.
A vote was then taken on the substitute motion. MOTION CARRIED.
139: GAN¥ GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITATION INITIATIVE: (Continued from January 9,
1979) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the report
and analysis of the impact of the Gann Government Spending Limitation Initiative
was continued one week at the request of the Chamber of Commerce. MOTION CARRIED.
116: REORCANIZATION PLAN FOR CITY DEPARTMENTS: City Manager Talley referred to
bis memorandum dated January 11, 1979 with attached revised organizational chart
encompassing the changes discussed at the Executive Management Seminar on January 10,
1979. He believed the plan now reflected the Council's concern expressed
at that meeting. The City Treasurer was now located on the same line with the
City Clerk, City Attorney and City Manager. The Risk Management Center was
indicated as reporting directly to the Assistant City Manager to the City Manager
and was not part of any other department. Those were the only changes discussed
and if that met the Council's wishes, there were two motions and four resolutions
upon which the Council must act. Two of the resolutions would take effect when
the ordinances were in effect, and the other two could take effect immediately.
The Mayor stated that the matter was discussed at the work session and the City
Manager had made the changes and recommendations as discussed.
Councilman Kott stated as he expressed at that work session, he felt that while
the reorganization looked good on paper and there was a promise of it costing less
money, as he viewed it, it added another layer of government and would obscure
the position of the City Manager in that he had relieved himself of more direct
duties. It was his opinion if the idea that money would be saved was part of
the scheme, that should be built into the resolutions and motions as an assurance
79-75
City Hal%.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
that that was going to happen. It might be acceptable today, but he was concerned
about succeeding years, whereas if a problem arose in one area or another, then
someone else would be needed. He thus proposed that a freeze be instituted for
at least ten years with regard to the officers indicated. For example, with Mr.
Ruth being promoted to Deputy City Manager, he did not feel the position should
be replaced by somebody else because Mr. Ruth might not be able to handle all of
his duties. He felt that the public had a right to be protected. Therefore, there
should be no added positions that would replace or become involved at that level
of management.
Mayor Seymour stated he was sensitive to what Councilman Kott was saying and that
was a concern of his as well, but he did not think that a ten-year freeze was a
practical way of alleviating that concern. He suggested that the City Manager
might have a recommendation along that line and perhaps they could take a look at
the situation in a year or two.
Mr. Talley stated that in order to appoint a department head, that action had
to be ratified by the Council. They could not add a position without CouL~cil approval.
Thus he believed the protection was there, as long as the Council wanted it.
Councilman Kott stated that he was merely trying to say that unless he had assurance
that the top part of the bureaucracy would not be heavier than at present, he would
not support the plan.
MOTION: Councilman Roth stated that they spent several hours in a thorough discussion
of the plan and the changes. The Council gave input to the City Manager who agreed
to make t~e changes that concerned some members, and he did not see any problem with
that. I~ addition, an effort was made to present the plan to the City/County Govern-
ment Committee of the Chamber, and there were no loud cries of opposition from that
Committee. The matter was well aired, vented and discussed, and he was in support
of the revised plan. He thereupon moved to concur with the revised proposed
reorganization plan of City departments as presented by the City Manager. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he shared Councilman Kott's
concerns relative to new layers being created. When passing on additional respon-
sibilities to any manager, there seemed to be a natural tendency in the private
and public sector for that individual to need assistance of some sort. On the
other hand, he was sensitive to giving the City Manager an opportunity to move
ahead with something he had said would save dollars in the future. He questioned
the current dollar savings and he did so in the work session, but he was willing
to go on faith that the p~ogram would accomplish those savings in the future. As
well, his security o~ assurance was that if in the future, he saw that layering
taking place, he would be able to voice his opposition at that time. With that
explanation, he would support the reorganization plan as amended.
Councilman Kott stated that the Council members might not be there in the future
or the City Manager. Also with the isolation the City Manager was going to have
with the new layering, he would be difficult to get to, so he could not support
the plan.
79-76
City Hall~.. Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he thought that the 3½ hours work session they had
last Wednesday was one of the most productive sessions he had witnessed inter-
relating between the Council Members, Department Heads and the City Manager in
evaluating the proposed reorganization. Out of that session came the changes
which were included as amendments. He believed they gave the City Manager too
much credit for the reorganization in that it was his understanding that the
reorganization evolved over a period of time from top management of the City,
with the City Manager meeting with department heads trying different proposals
to cut costs and to streamline and consolidate Anaheim government. His further
understanding from the Manager's presentation at that meeting was that the plan
was hopefully the first step to further consolidating and streamlining and to
further cut costs. He was, therefore, supportive of the plan as he indicated at
the work session. He also understood that there was general support of the plan
at that session with the amendments that were now included.
Councilman Kott reiterated what he considered an important point, that being, he
was also supportive, but wanted additional assurance or insurance that stated the
plan was really going to happen.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that no matter how well plans were laid out, until
they were tried, it was not possible to know what would happen. It was important
to have the flexibility to change things that did not work and to improve things
at all times. She did not like to freeze anything for ten years because of the
drastic changes that could take place. Unless they remained flexible and able
to act and react to changing times, then they were, in effect, not answering any-
thing with Proposition 13. They had to be seeki~g new ways all the time and to
examine ard question whatever they were doing.
Councilman Kott stated that he believed it was established at the meeting that the
majority of the cuts would be taking place even without the reorganization.
Councilwoman Kaywood did not agree and she did not think that the restructuring
was related to Proposition 13.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "no". MOTION
CAR_RI ED.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Manager and City Attorney were directed to prepare the necessary amendments to
reflect the revised reorganization plan. Councilman Kott voted "no". MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-33 through 79R-36, both inclusive, for
adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-809 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
PROGRAM MANAGERS AND MODIFYING A JOB CLASS. (Stadium and Parking Manager.)
79-77
Citj! Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-660 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, AND CREATING THE CLASS-
IFICATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION COORDINATOR.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-819 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COM]PENSATION FOR JOB
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MODIFYING CERTAIN JOB CLASSES AND
RATES OF COMPENSATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-809 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
PROGRAM MANAGERS AND MODIFYING CERTAIN JOB CLASSES AND RATES OF COMPENSATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
Ihe biayor declared Resolution No. 79R-33 through 79R-36, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
147: WAIVER OF SANITATION FEES FOR BREAL, INC.: Councilman Roth reported that
at the Sanitation District meeting on Wednesday, January 10, 1979, the Directors
of the District requested each Council Member representing his District to go
back to his respective Council to ask direction on an item. A request had been
received f'~om Breal, Inc. that the District waive a $6,600 sanitation hook-up
fee on a joint venture with the City of Brea and several service groups who were
building thirty units of low-cost housing for the senior citizens of Brea without
the aid of County, State or Federal funds. 2~he City of Brea was leasing the
property and charging one dollar a year for 50 years, Breal being a non-profit
organization. The proposal would require a change in the Ordinance of the
Sanitation District and that was the reason they asked the Directors to go back
to their Councils to obtain direction. After listening to the long discussion,
he was inclined to be supportive. Mr. Piersall, Director of Public Works, called
him (Roth) that morning and suggested that if the Council supported the request,
that they should also request that the Sanitation hook-up fees for the expansion
of the Stadium be ~,aived which would save the City approximately $10,000. Council-
man Roth suggested that the matter also be referred to the Executive Director of
Community Development, Norm Priest, so that they might try to recoup any monies
relating to the senior citizens housing sanitation hook-up fees. It appeared to
him that the majority of the Directors present were going to be supportive.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved for a waiver of sanitation fees of $6,600 for Breal,
Inc., represented by Sanitation District No. 2 and requesting a waiver of $10,000
in sanitation hook-up fees for the expansion of Anaheim Stadium. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Sanitation Districts
were having a problem, and they had to use their capital funds for operating. She
wanted to know where the money would come from.
79-78
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated it would come from the taxpayers. If the waiver was
ultimately approved, it would be subsidized by the citizens. He stated however
that there was a good possiblity upon receipt of the Anaheim request to waive
the $10,000 fee, that both would be scuttled.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
162: PUBLIC SAFETY OPERATION ANALYSIS: Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 N. Ranchito first
stated that the Council might have just reorganized some of the suggestions he
made at the meeting of September 5, 1978 (see minutes that date) relative to the
feasibility of establishing a Public Safety Commission. He continued that he was
recommending not only a Commission, but also the consideration of establishing the
position of Public Safety Director with a consolidation of all emergency communication
networks into one system. At that meeting, the Council directed the City Manager
and the Chief of Police to review his proposals and make recommendations. He was
present today to address the Council regarding his proposed concept as well as to
hear the recommendations of the City Manager and the Police Chief. He then referred
to several newspaper articles from various papers from June 1978 through December
1978, basically revolving around police problems in Anaheim. With that background in
mind, it was his opinion that the Council should consider at least one of his
recommendations, that being the idea of a Public Safety Commission, or it could be
called a Police Commission. Departments that did not have any direct citizen input
were the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments and it was his opinion it
was necessary to have input relative to those areas so that the public could
have ready access to a commission or a committee just as with every other area in
the City. That was a vacuum he wanted to see filled. He also explained that it
was not his intent in his recommendations to suggest a consolidation of departments
such as Police and Fire.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (5:40 P.M.)
Mr. Dexter then explained for Councilman Kott the people he had spoken with regarding
his proposal. In concluding, he stated that a Deputy City Manager in charge of
Public Safety might be in order.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file report dated January 10, 1979,
Public Safety Operation Analysis, from the City Manager's office. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Dexter stated it was his understanding that the City
Manager and Polic Chief were going to look at the original recommendation and he
wanted to know their thoughts on that recommendation.
Councilman Roth stated that the City's new Police Chief had been on board only
since January 4th and he was just settling into his position and now a major
reorganization was being proposed. He had a great deal of respect as to the
ability of Chief Tielsch, but at this time, he wanted the proposal to go back
to the City Manager for further discussion with the Chief to ascertain his views
and subsequently relay those views to the Council. This was not the appropriate
time.
79-79
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dexter suggested that it also be sent to the Fire Chief since public safety
was not just a police matter but encompassed putting out fires, paramedics and
even public works.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
162: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON RENT CONTROL: Mr. Dick Russo, 200 N.
Gilbert stated that the subject was of great importance to him personally and a
number of his friends had to move because of unscrupulous, "dollar-hungry"
landlords. He thereupon submitted a copy of letter dated November 28, 1978 to
the Council sent to him by the management corporation who owned the apartments
in which he lived, announcing a $25 per month increase commencing January 1, 1979.
Most of the tenants who lived in his building were senior citizens and he reit-
erated, ten of his friends had to move from the complex where they had lived for
5 or 6 years because they could not afford the $25 rent increase since they
lived on fixed incomes.
Mr. Russo then discussed other items involving his background in various fields,
at the conclusion of which he made the following recommendation to the Council:
That they appoint a cross-section committee of citizens to investigate the rent
situation in the City, as well as to investigate, further, the rights of landlords
and what they were allowed to do. He also suggested that a hotline be instituted
where calls from citizens could be directed so that they might give their personal
opinions on the subject. He volunteered five phones at his expense to be staffed
by volunteer labor.
The Council thanked Mr. Russo for his input and presentation.
VARIANCE NO. 2766, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1584 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8905--
EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Ervin Engineering for an extension of time to
Variance No. 2766, Conditional Use Permit No. 1584 and Tentative Tract No. 8905,
to establish a 25 unit, 30-lot subdivision on RM-4000 (SC) zoned property located
on the east side of Anaheim Hills Road and the south side of Santa Aha Canyon
Road.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an extension of
time to the subject Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract was
granted, to expire January 27, 1980. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
175: AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE I~TERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT MEMBERSHIP AND STUDY
AGREEMENT: Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt pointed out that the proposed Resolution
submitted to the Council was an error in that it was written to authorize the
Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement, whereas it should have read the
Utilities Director.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-37 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated January 18, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board with the
correction as noted by Mr. Hoyt. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO INTERMOUNTAIN POWER
PROJECT bIEMBERSHIP AND STUDY AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE UTILITIES
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT.
79-80
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~. 1979, .1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that he felt that Anaheim did
not have the volume to warrant the expenditure of getting into such a project,
and thus he was opposed.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-37 duly passed and adopted.
175: POSSIBILITY OF ELECTRIC RATE INCREASE: Utilities Director Hoyt then reported
that his Department received word from Southern California Edison (SCE) today that
they had filed a wholesale rate increase yesterday. He had received a copy of the
filing but did not have an opportunity to analyze it. A quick look indicated a 3%
increase for Anaheim on the base rate although he was not able to tell what they're
doing with the fuel. They had also been notified today that the fuel cost adjust-
ment for the current month was going to be just over 3/4 of a cent per kilowatt
hour, and they had estimated just over 1/4 of a cent per kilowatt hour, thus
giving an unanticipated expenditure of nearly $600,000. In the last few months,
Southern California Edison had cost the City two to two and a half million dollars
more than was budgeted for fuel. He believed it was going to be essential that
they review their rates, and he was certain his rccommendation would be a rate
increase although he was not exactly certain of the timing, nor the amount. He also
explained that they were bound by the new Department of Energy Regulations requiring
public hearings on rate increases. They had to determine if the public hearings
would be held before the Council or the Public Utilities Board.
Mr. Hoyt concluded that they were looking at an electric rate increase as a result
of increased costs of power supplies from SCE which was why he believed that
projects such as the Intermountain Power Project were essential to the City's
survival.
Councilman Kott left the Council chamber. (6:11 P.M.)
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator, or allowed
and the applications for Leave to Present Late Claims were denied:
1. Claim submitted by Kathryn Marie Gibbons for personal injuries and damages
purportedly sustained as a result of an accident caused by faulty condition of
Tustin Avenue near Orangethorpe Avenue, on or about October 14, 1978.
79-81
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. Claim submitted by Sharon Nahay for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident as a result of being struck by City vehicle, on or
about September 26, 1978.
3. Claim submitted by Daniel Cline for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of fall in Anaheim Stadium from an escalator, on or about November 11,
1978.
4. Claim submitted by Kathryn J. Hare for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of no barricade or traffic directional devices in the
vicinity of Katella and Knott Avenues, on or about September 16, 1978.
5. Claim submitted by Marc E. Hendershot for personal injuries and property
damages purportedly sustained as a result of being struck by vehicle in the
Anaheim Stadium parking lot due to improper policing of said parking lot on
or about September 23, 1978.
6. Claim submitted by Bobby Earl Peters for vehicle damages purportedly
sustained as a result of hole in Euclid Street at Riverside Freeway, on
or about December 19, 1978.
7. Claim submitted by Ralph E. Eley, on behalf of Christopher Earl Eley, a
minor, for personal injuries as a pedestrian, purportedly sustained as a result of
being struck by a vehicle due to dangerous condition of Brookhurst Street and
Crescent Avenue, on or about September 19, 1978.
8. Claim submitted by James Thomas Graham for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about September 23, 1978.
The following claim was allowed as recommended by the City Attorney:
9. Claim submitted by Mrs. Florence Penn for expenses incurred purportedly as
a result of suspension of utility service in error, in October 1978.
The following Applications for Leave to Present Late Claims were denied, as
recommended by the City Attorney:
1. Application submitted by Helen Duey for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a slip and fall at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
July 7, 1978.
2. Application submitted by Ir~terlnsurance Exchange the Automobile Club of
Southern California (Phyllis Nation, subrogue) for damage to vehicle purportedly
sustained as a result of being struck by a City vehicle in Martin Luther Hospital
parking lot, on or about April 16, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of December 18, 1978.
b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division - Monthly report for December 1978.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division - Annual Report for 1978.
79-82
City Hall~. An. aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of December 20, 1978.
e. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of December 27, 1978.
f. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of December 7 and 21, 1978.
g. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of November 9 and 15, 1978.
h. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of December 12, 1978.
3. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10585 AND 10586: Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
to establish 2 subdivisions consisting of a l-lot, 51-unit condominium sub-
division, and a l-lot, 37-unit condominium subdivision, respectively, on
RM-4000(SC) zoned property located on the west side of Nohl Ranch Road, south
of the centerline of Canyon Rim Road. (Submitted in conjunction with Variance
No. 3057)
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Nos. 10585 and 10586
for 50 units and 37 units, respectively, and granted negative declaration status.
Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
178: ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1978: Councilwoman
Kaywood stated that she wanted to compliment Mr. Gus Lenain on his excellent
report. She gleaned a great deal from the report and it pointed out why costs
that the District dealt with were so high.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Mr. Lenain be sent a letter complimenting
him on his report and the information contained therein. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDA~ ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-38
through 79R-41, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Philip Borsuk,
et ux; Emkay Business Centre/Anaheim; California Towel & Linen Supply Company;
Villa Vista Development Corp.; Robert P. Warmington; Euclid Shopping Center;
Joe E. Martinez, et al.; Louis Ortiz, et ux.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-39: 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: STATE COLLEGE
BOULEVARD SEWER LATERAL, S/O SYCAMORE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 11-790-6325-0140; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 8,
1979, at 2:00 P.M.)
79-83
~City.Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-40: 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: PEARSON PARK
POOL DEMOLITION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-808-7105-00002; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK OF PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 8, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-41: 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: PEARSON PARK
POOL CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-808-7105-00001; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 8, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: GOUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymo~
The Mayoc Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 79R-38 through 79R-41, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Councilman ~ott entered the Council chamber. (6:15 P.M.)
102: ORDINANCE NO. 3956: (Dog defecation Ordinance) Councilman Roth stated he
would prefer to postpone adoption of the Ordinance until there was a full Council.
City Attorney Hopkins stated there was no reason why the Ordinance had to be
acted upon today.
MOTION: Councilman Roth stated again that he would prefer to have a full Council
voting on the matter~ a~ well as the fact that there was some additional data
submitted by the Police Chief which he did not have an opportunity to review.
He thereupon moved that consid~ration of proposed Ordinance No. 3956 be continued
one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3957 THROUGH 3960: Councilwomam Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3957
through 3960, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3957: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-29, RM-4000, Tract No. 10178)
79-84
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1979~ 1:30 .P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3958: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-52, RS-A-43,000, Santa
Ana Canyon No. 5 Annexation)
ORDINANCE NO. 3959: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-12, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3960: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (RS-HS-22,000)
155: COMMENDATION OF STAFF OF ZONING AND PLANNING: Councilman Roth stated
he had received a communication from Mr. Jack Cahoon who had a discussion with
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, relative to the relocation
of a business in the downtown area. Mr. Cahoon made a special point to ask
him (Roth) to convey to management his praise for Ms. Santalahti in her ability
in assisting him. He indicated she was polite, knowledgeable and should be
commended for a job well done. Councilman Roth asked Planning Director Ron
Thompson to convey that to Ms. Santalahti and his staff.
169: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY RELATIVE TO HOLES IN CITY STREETS: Councilman
Kott noted that three of the eight claims against the City which were presented
today revolved around holes in City streets. Mr. Talley explained that last
winter's rain and those being experienced this year were causing a greater
number of potholes. He stated however that he would submit a brief report on
the matter.
Mayor Pro ?em Kaywood stated that to prevent such problems that was why she
wanted a storm drain issue on the ballot because it was very expensive and
could not. be accomplished piecemeal.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:20 P.M.
LIND~ D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK