1979/04/0379-360
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, K~ywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone
FIRE INVESTIGATOR: Norman Morgan
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Canon John Kimball Saville, St. Michael's Episcopal Church,
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and approved by the City Council:
"Day of Reverence - Good Friday" - April 13, 1979
"Angel Town, California" - April 10, 1979
"National Library Week" - April 1-7, 1979
Mr. Tommy Tomassen accepted the proclamation on the "Day of Reverence" and
Mr. Bill Griffith, City Librarian, accepted the "National Library Week" proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously adopted
by the City Council on the untimely passing of Dale Carroll Rosenbloom, owner of
th~ Los Angeles Rams, to be presented to his family, and that a formal ~tate of
mourning be declared throughout Anaheim with flags on all public buildings to
be lowered to halfmast through Monday, April 9, 1979 in memory of Mr. Rosenbloom.
MINUTES: Deferred.
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 CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $657,980.14, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
79-361
City Ha.lip Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized as
recommended by the City Engineer:
a. 164: Continued the award of Project Alpha Off-Site Water Main (Account
No. 51-606-6340-25070-34350) to April 10, 1979.
b. 169: Continued the award of Nohl Ranch Road/Meats Avenue Improvement
Project A.H.F.P. Project Nos. 908, 909, and 846, (Account Nos. 13-792-6325-
2130, 13-794-6325-4090, 01-794-6325-4090, 13-792-6325-2150) to April 10, 1979.
MOTION CARRIED.
175: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF BID OPENING DATE - 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINES:
(Lewis Substation to the vicinity of Kraemer Boulevard and La Palma Avenue and
the Yorba Substation to the vicinity of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Anaheim Hills
Road) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-186 for adoption as rec-
ommended in memorandum dated March 27, 1979 from the Public Utilities General
Manager, extending the bid opening date to April 19, 1979 at 2:00 P.M. Refer
to Resolution Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-186: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-151 TO EXTEND THE BID DATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
69 KV TRANSMISSION LINES, ACCOUNT NO. 55-668-6328-73520-36400.
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-186 duly passed and adopted.
144: A.H.F.P. PROJECT NO. 932 - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD-HASTER STREET OVERCROSSINC
OF THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-187
for adoption as recommended by the City Engineer in memorandum dated March 26,
1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-187: 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 COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR PROJECT NO. 932 OF THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Page 4 of the Agreement
where she believed there was a reversal of the words "City and County": Line 14,
should be, "...not delegated to the County." Line 16, insert the word, "City"
harmless.. Line 19, should be "...to the County under this agreement".
City Attorney Hopkins concurred in those corrections.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
79-362
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 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-187 duly passed and adopted.
Later in the meeting Councilwoman Kaywood reported that City Attorney Hopkins
pointed out that the only correction necessary relative to the above would
be to insert the word "City" on Line 16.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained they had checked with the County Counsel
and there was a "not" in the wording which they preferred to have left in place.
It was his opinion that was satisfactory and all that was necessary was a
correction on Line 16, "and hold the City harmless".
156: CALIFORNIA WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM (CWPP): Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 79R-188 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 22,
1979 from the Chief of Police, George Tielsch. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-188: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CALIFORNIA WITNESS PROTEC-
TION PROGRAM (CWPP) AND TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THEREFOR.
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-188 duly passed and adopted.
103: ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 28 ANNEXATION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
No. 79R-189 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 23, 1979 from
the Planning Director, Ron Thompson. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 28.
(9.76 acres located in the Edison easement, south of Imperial Highway)
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-189 duly passed and adopted.
79-363
.City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
128: FINANCIAL STATEMENT - SEVEN MONTHS ENDING JANUARY 31~ 1979 AND EIGHT
MONTHS ENDING FEBRUARY 28~ 1979: Mayor Seymour questioned the disproportionate
budgeting of interest earned in the Utilities Department and the continuing
billing problem of the Data Processing Department to MDS for money owed the
City.
Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, first explained that the yield rate had
increased 60 to 65%, and they would be substantially ahead of the budget by years'
end in the amount of approximately $2 million. Also, the implementation of the
Money Max System had done great things as far as increasing the City's yield
portfolio. They did not know their rates were going to increase as much as they
had, nor did they realize how much benefit they would receive from Money Max.
A combination of those two factors accounted for the increase in the level of
interest income, and they would now be maintained at a constant level.
City Manager William Talley also stated that under cash flow, certain bond
proceeds in both the Redevelopment Agency and Utilities Departments were not
extended as programmed, leaving the money available for investment.
Mr. Ferrone then explained that relative to the MDS billing, it had been setmp
to be billed on a quarterly basis and would be current again in March. At present,
it appeared that they would be $100,000 to $150,000 short of their projections
by the end of the year, the reason being they had anticipated adding more cities ~--
than they were able to add.
Mr. Talley further explained that the program was to add approximately six cities
and only one-half were added thus far. The bulk of the money anticipated to be
spent was going to be offset by the revenues. They were not expending the money,
and they were not receiving revenues. Thus the Data Processing budget itself
was in balance, but they were not signing cities at the rate they expected at the
start of the year.
Mayor Seymour stated he had opposed the concept of the Data Processing Department
competing with private enterprise. He stated a year ago that in his opinion, it
would not work and it would turn out to be a financial fiasco and although it
was not presently at that stage, it appeared to be headed in that direction.
Mr. Talley explained that the revenues were estimated by MDS and additional
services were also budgeted. The budget therefore anticipated that they would
not only be giving more money, but also asking for more services.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Data Processing Department was ready to purchase
new hardware and to spend substantial amounts of money, betting that they would
be successful in competing with private enterprise. He was suggesting to the
Council they watch the direction of that Department to preclude any trouble.
Mr. Talley stated they did not buy the equipment because the new orders were not
realized. Mr. Ferrone also confirmed that starting next month, they would be
budgeting on a monthly basis on MDS which would normalize the peaks and valleys
currently experienced.
79-364
Cit~ H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dave Morgan, Staff Assistant, Data Processing Department stated the agree-
ment allowed for quarterly or monthly billings and in reviewing the billing
process, they discovered it was best to bill on a monthly basis.
Councilman Overholt stated that primarily through the Mayor's admonition a
year ago, he too had become concerned regarding the MDS program as most
Council Members. The fact that the revenues were down and expenses were down
was an indication that all participants in the program, as well as staff, shared
that concern. He was hopeful there could be a final evaluation of the phil-
osophy of attaching a tenet to that program so as to avoid the types of pit-
falls about which the Mayor spoke a year ago.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she recalled the City's cost were considerably
under what the County was paying for Data Processing services and the County
experienced constant problems.
Mr. Talley stated that as a percentage of the budget, the City's cost were
substantially under, but they did not have a way to compare that directly with
the County. Statistically they were charging less than comparable agencies.
Councilwoman Kaywood also asked if they had purchased any hardware that was not
needed for the City's requirements.
Mr. Talley answered they were only charging for a larger computer than they
otherwise would require because they shared the base unit. Ail of the peripheral
equipment was billed to the users, the City, or MDS cities.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved to receive and file the Financial Statements for
the 7-month period ending January 31, 1979 and for the 8-month period ending
February 28, 1979. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105/175: DELEGATING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT HRARINGS:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-190 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated March 28, 1979 from the City Attorney's office, delegating the
Public Utilities Board the authority to conduct hearings in accordance with
the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DELEGATING TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THE AUTHORITY TO
CONDUCT HEARINGS PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT OF 1978.
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-190 duly passed and adopted.
79-365
City Hall, An.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
114: STATUS OF HOTLINE COMPLAINT: Councilman Kott asked for clarification on
a hotline complaint received by a Miss Neill regarding a charge for towing by
W&W Towing which she believed to be excessive, noting that Deputy City Attorney
Howard Brody responded to the complaint explaining that it was a civil matter
and also noted that W&W was not permitted to engage in private property impounds
in Anaheim. He (Kott) wanted to know what was going to be done.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the matter was discussed with Lt. Gaston and
a further investigation of the activity would be undertaken by the Police
Department since there was violation of the Ordinance and that action was in
process.
105: VACANCY ON COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: City Clerk Linda Roberts announced
that there was a vacancy on the Community Services Board and with Council
permission the appointment of a new member would be placed on the Council agenda
on April 10, 1979. No objection was voiced.
102: USE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH: Mayor Seymour first explained
that the Council previously adopted Resolution No. 78R-569 opposing the use
of stray animals for research purposes at the meeting of August 29, 1978
(see minutes that date). Subsequently Councilman Kott brought it to the
attention of the Council that they should reconsider their previous stand on
the issue. Both sides, for and against, were present today and he asked first
to hear those in support of the use of impounded animals for research. It was
also ascertained by a show of hands that there were approximately eight in
favor and eight in opposition who wished to speak on the matter.
Dr. Ronald Karlsberg, Chief Cardiovascular Physiology Assistant Professor of
Medicine, University of California, Irvine, 16332 Spartan Circle, Huntington
Beach, read from a prepared statement indicating the issue under discussion
would have a profound impact on the citizens of Orange County and it was now
necessary to consider the interest of the community at large and not just a
vocal, sincere, but misdirected minority. He then gave his qualifications and
emphasized the fact that he was before the Council today, foregoing all of his
professional duties including research which would eventually lead to new drugs,
cures and devices, because research at his institution and others in the community
had already been severely hampered by resolutions similar to that passed'by Anaheim.
His research in looking for new ways to treat heart attacks had already lost
over one month's time this year because of the unavailability of animals from
the shelter. The opposition was almost entirely from the anti-vivisectionists
which had blatantly misrepresented the issues and unfortunately when the
resolution was originally discussed, only one side was heard at the Council meeting.
An extensive presentation then followed by Dr. Karlsberg, revolving around his
letter to the Council dated March 28, 1979 and the documentation submitted
therein - "Guide For the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals," AAALAC activities
report, and resolution supporting the ethical use of animals in research for
the cure and control of diseases (on file in the City Clerk's office). In
concluding, he urged the Council to rescind the current Resolution 78R-569
and to introduce and pass the revised resolution to help undo the harm that
had been done. He also stated that all of the individuals from both sides
who could answer the Council's questions were present today: Dean Van Den Noort,
Dean of the Medical School, University of California, Irvine, Dr. Winchester,
Assistant Dean and Director of Animal Resources from UCI, Dr. Rutger, Chief of
79-366
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
NeoNatology, Childrens' ~ospital Dr. Walter Henry, Cheif of Cardiology, UCI,
Dr. Batzel, Chairman of the Animal Care Committee, Long Beach Veterans Admin-
istration Hospital, and in addition many of the concerned residents and
individuals.
Mrs. Lucy Buckman, 702 Los Verdes Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated she
was present as a pet owner and research assistant. In her present work,
she had never seen an animal mistreated and she had worked in many laboratories
involving animal research and was astonished at how well cared for animals
were. The studies performed on the amimals were always passed before or approved
by an ethics committee to insure that the animals would not be misused. Research
required and continued to require a large number of animals in order to aid
in the development and advancement of medical technology.
Mr. Mike Burgess, Chief of Pulmonary Profusion, with 10 years of experience in
Cardiopulmonary Bypass, presented an artificial lung along with the oxygenator
unit which he explained kept people alive during cardiac surgery. He stated
that he played a very large part in the development of the oxygenator and
advised that it could not have been developed and used safely in humans without
the availability of shelter animals for preliminary testing. It was devised
and designed to reduce the amount of blood necessary during heart surgery. As
well, he had a great deal of control over the care of the animals used during
the experimental procedures and he assured the Council that they were not
mistreated. His major concern was that they not suffer pain during the course
of experimentation. He asked the Council to seriously reconsider their previous
stand on the issue.
Dr. Henry Batzel, Chairman of the Animal Resources Committee, Long Beach Veterans
Adminstration Hospital, 9742 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, stated he had 30
years of experience in medical research and he was also a dog owner and dog
lover. One of the greatest stories in the history of medicine was devoted to
the disease of diabetes. He was not certain how many animals were sacrificed
in understanding the diseases, but was certain it was a considerable number.
It was not until the mid-1920s when diabetes was fully understood and the agent
insulin isolated, tested and found to be effective in its control. He also
knew of one case in Anaheim in which a dog was being treated for diabetes.
Mr. Mark Warren, 16806 14th Street, Huntington Beach, a 15-year old student
at Huntington Beach High School, stated that in his biology class, he had
discovered the great need for radical research of animals to solve many of
the medical problems in the world today. He found it hard to believe that
some people would rather kill a homeless, unloved animal, instead of letting
them be used for medical research where their lives could have some meaning.
He was also the owner of a German Shepard and would not like to see something
happen to her. If the Council failed to adopt the proposed resolution encour-
aging the ethical conduction of research, they would leave very little in the
way of hope for the doctors of his generation. He did not think there was
anyone present that would volunteer his body for research in place of an
unwanted animal.
79-367
.City ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Dr. Ralph Rucker, Chief of NeoNatology at Children's Hospital, 1627 Chanticleer,
stated he was responsible for the care of premature babies, infants and children
at Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC). He then explained the advances
and the state of the art relative to the care of premature babies and pointed
to a specific case of hyaline membrane disease which claimed the lif~ of the Kennedy
baby in 1963. Those babies today had a 60% to 70% chance of survival, up from
10% in 1963. The change occurred as a result of research in the development of
the premature lung in and out of the uterus. A large share of the work in the
development of the enzyme system in which the lung matures and the work of
delaying labor occurred in animals. At UCI, they recently developed a treatment
which he explained called Ecmo done through the use of animals from the County
Pound. It was only by the experience learned from the animals that they were
able to teach the technique which had been used in adults down to little
babies. The UCI Medical Center and CHOC were the only place in the country
using the technique on a consistent basis. He encouraged the Council to recon-
sider the issue.
The following people spoke in opposition to the use of pound animals for research:
Ms. Marilyn Jones, resident of Santa Ana, first submitted to the Council docu-
mentation (Page 1-15) entitled, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, Orange County from Dr. Eugene Yates,
Director, Biomedical Engineering Center dated September 5, 1978 (on file in
the City Clerk's office). Ms. Jones stated the documentation was both for
clarification and hopefully edification and a guideline, so that neither during
or at the conclusion of her presentation, would there be any question as to the
validity of her statements. An. extensive presentation followed revolving
around the documentation submitted upon which she elaborated specifically on those
items in sections underlined in red, as well as upon a number of experiments
performed on cats and dogs. In concluding, she stated that the Council had
both heard and read for themselves what happened to animals taken from the
Orange County Pound to research laboratories. Today, strays taken from Anaheim
to the Pound were spared what she called agonization. She presumed it was
difficult for Council to try to decide what they felt was best for the well
being of the people of the City and Orange County as a whole. She asked
that as they searched for an answer, that answer would be a worthy one.
Virginia LaRue, 1228 East Hampshire Street, President of Pet Savers, based in
Anaheim first described some of the inhumane experiments performed on animals.,
much of which had been done under paralyzing drugs and not anesthetics. Vivi-
sectionists felt that man was the most intelligent species and he had the
absolute right to do what he pleased with all living things. If it was
right to torture laboratory animals for the benefit of mankind, then it would
also be right to torture one man for the benefit of 100 men. She continued
that reports by experimenters themselves had been published in leading journals
such as.Britians, Lancet and the American, German and Swiss counterparts. She
then read some of the statements published.
In closing, Ms. LaRue stated that relative to pound animals, she had talked to
many people and asked them if their own pet was in the shelter and they could
claim it in time, would they want it to go to research. The answer was "no"
79-368
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
because the animal was their own personal pet. She thereupon submitted a list
to the Council of the people contacted and their answers, showing only one
"yes." She also urged the Council to consider that fact that the institutions
obtaining animals from the pound were not from Orange County but from Long
Beach Veterans Hospital, Huntington Institute and USC. She maintained that the
animals should be allowed to die a dignified death. Representatives of the
laboratories were in the shelter every morning at 7:00 A.M. Having been in the
shelter at that time, she could testify to the fact that the animals chosen were
the healthy, friendly, trusting animals, only to die at man's hands.
Ms. Judy B. Striker, 3001 Royal Palm Drive, Costa Mesa, stated she had received
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the numbers of experiments
on animals involving pain from UCI's Medical Research Program, the VA Hospital,
Long Beach and the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She there-
upon relayed the number of experiments performed involving painful research
which totaled 2226 at UCI and 1728 at USC. She submitted the figures to the
Council and also a memorandum signed by Dr. Fisher and Dr. Winchester stating
that, "it is necessary to perform the study in the awake state since even small
amounts of anesthetics would injure the electrical responses..."
She stated the issue should not be vivisection, but pound seizure, meaning
animals taken from any municipal shelter and sold for research purposes. They
should not have to debate doctors on vivisection. The act of pound seizure
forced the tax-supported pounds to violate a public trust and to become the
servants of a special interest, the medical profession. Further the act of
pound seizure deprived animals of the sanctuary which the pounds were supposed to
be and condemned them to suffer. Dr. Karlsberg stated it cost them $500 per
animal, whereas the County of Los Angeles sold dogs for research at $7.14 each
and cats for $4.24 each; City Pounds, $7.00 for dogs, $2.00 for cats. There
were 125 registered breeders of laboratory animals in California alone selling
to laboratories and a total of 20,000 brought in by owners last year which
were available to those doctors. The resolution did not cover anything but
lost pets. There were many animals ~ivailable through the Orange County Shelter
over which they had no control in relation to the resolution. The loss of
revenue was $15,000 for ~nimals sold to research, but the loss of revenue to
the people for the past two years had been in excess of $250,000 for 1976-77
and $350,000 for 1977-78. She con~luded that they could not continue to
permit the Pound to be turned into a collection depot for the vivisectors. It
was supposedto be a place of refuge for their lost animals, but it was not. The
point was whether or not the animals would suffer before death, not that they
were to die.
Mrs. Edith Hasse, 730 North Lemon, Anaheim stated that in order to reclaim a
lost pet at the Pound, it cost $40.60, as compared to the low fees quoted for
laboratories to buy those animals. She was concerned over the profound
impact that the City Council's decision would have on Anaheim's citizens
should they decide to reverse their previous resolution. The City expected
the Council to protect their needs including their possessions and pets. She
asked that they think carefully about letting the animal researchers pick up
animals in the Pound.
79-369
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor then asked that a summation be given.
Dr. Van Den Noort, Dean of the Medical School, UCI, stated that research on living
animals was essential to what they must learn in the future about human disease.
There was also a growing sensitivity in the research community over the necessity
to safeguard the animals and to protect them from those whose interest in their
subject would surpass their sensitivity. To that end, a number of accrediting
agencies had been developed for animal resources and facilities and they had
such an accredited agency at UCI under the leadership of Dr. Winchester.
Documentation was referred to earlier regarding the alleged use of animals in
research dealing with pain. It was important for them to use dogs and cats
because a great deal of their historical information was based on those
animals and the essential point was that they would continue to be used in
medical research. The price comparison between a pound animal and one obtained
through a breeder was different by at least a factor of 10 and if animals
were bred exclusively for medical research, the price was considerably higher.
In closing, he asked the Council to rescind their previous resolution and
adopt the resolution previously submitted to them by Dr. Karlsberg. He also
recommended that it be strengthened to a degree on the opposing side by changing
the last paragraph, first page to read, "...use of animals for research by
institutions approved by the American Association of Accreditation of Laboratory
Animal Care..." instead of, "...institutions recognized by the...". He also
invited any member of the Council or staff, as well as other public figures in
Orange County, capable of having an objective and organized look at the matter,
to visit the UCI campus and their animal resources facility and to talk with
and observe those who were performing the research on the animals obtained from
the Pound.
The Mayor then closed the publJ~c participation portion of the meeting.
Councilman Kott first stated that he did not doubt the purposes of the anti-
vivisection group, but while it was possible that they might have access to
or read certain things, from what he had seen and heard today, it appeared
that there was a lot of misrepresentation. He thereupon referred to some
of the documentation submitted by Ms. Striker where he felt there was a
misrepresentation of facts.
In answer to a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Ms. Striker relayed
the following: while they favored proper medical research, it was difficult to
define exactly what that entailed. She was not present to debate research, but
to question whether it was right to sell their pets for vivisection and that
was the issue. She reiterated they were not present to debate doctors; she
acknowledged that when bringing a pet to the Pound, the owner had the right
to sign a card as to whether or not they wanted it to go out to research. The
issue, however, revolved around lost animals picked up in the City and the
resolution had nothing to do with animals brought in by their owners; relative
to those pet owners who were afraid to give their pet to the Pound because
it would go to research, they would instead, turn the pet loose, creating the
problem of the cost of animal control causing it to escalate to $250,000 a year
to the taxpayer.
79-370
City H.a.ll.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Dr. Karlsberg then answered questions posed by both Councilwoman Kaywood and
Councilman Overholt: UCI was an accredited hospital for research and all of
the requirements necessary to be accredited were adhered to; stray animals
were those used for research; animals to be used were those slated to be
killed in any case; suffering was not involved when experimentation was per-
formed on the animals, each protocol had to go through a multi-disciplinary
committee and possible discomforts were thoroughly discussed; there were
rare circumstances when anesthetics were not used and those being when the
animal was not experiencing pain; the animals which they used from the
shelter might be strays or pets placed there by the owner or strays that were
formerly pets; they would not be able to obtain an animal for research if
someone specified that they did not want it used in research and those animals
were sacrificed at the shelter; the life expectancy of the people in the United
States had been increased dramatically because of such research, and death from
cardiovascular disease had been reduced, along with certain cancers.
Councilman Roth referred to report dated November 29, 1978 from UCI wherein
various types of animals were listed. He noted that according to the report,
not one animal was used for experimental purposes who received stress or pain
during the period of time covered by the report. He wanted to know if that was
a typical report.
Dr. Winchester stated that the report they submitted annually to the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture had to list all of the animals they had in their animal
resources facility. If an experiment was conducted without the use of anesthetics
or tranquilizers, they had to list that and submit a report explaining why.
Councilman Overholt stated that as an elected official, his duty was not necess-
arily to impose his personal view in situations, but vote along the lines of the
view of the citizenry. In the letters he received and through personal contact
from some people in the Chamber, the concern had been that pets not be subjected
to treatment that would be deemed inhumane. He felt humane was subject to a
more precise definition. He was going to support the recission of the former
action and support a position which would attempt to insure that pets be spared
from what would be considered inhumane treatment.
Councilman Overholt thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-191 for adoption
rescinding Resolution No. 78R-569. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-191: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-569 PERTAINING TO THE USE OF STRAY ANIMALS FOR
RESEARCH PURPOSES.
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-191 duly passed and adopted.
79-371
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt then stated that he was going to offer a resolution
supporting the ethical use of animals in research for the cure and control
of diseases using the proposed Resolution with modifications as follows:
first paragraph changed to read: "whereas, the City Council cognizant of the
value of the use of animals in ethical research..."
Delete paragraph No. 2.
Third paragraph, start with "Whereas, the cost of obtaining animals exclusively..."
Fourth and fifth paragraphs, start with, "Whereas..."
Sixth paragraph, "Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Anaheim that it does support the sale by the Orange County Animal Shelter of
animals for research by institutions approved by the American Association of
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care where research is conducted on an
established ethical basis with appropriate safeguards for the proper and humane
handling of such animals.", with the last paragraph to remain as is.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-192 for adoption modified as
articulated. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-192: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING THE ETHICAL USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH FOR THE CURE AND CONTROL OF
DISEASE.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated the reason he deleted
reference to the fact that only a samll portion of the animals were sold
for medical research was beside the point. He was concerned that no matter
what the proportion, that those animals be handled in a manner consistent
with ethical and humane standards. ~e addition of the word humane would not
cramp the style of medical research at all. The sensitivity to humarm standards
in dealing with laboratory animals was ~omething they should be bound to.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
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-192 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (4:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (4:20 P.M.) --~
79-372
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
107: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FROM NOTICE AND ORDER TO ABATE A
DANGEROUS BUILDING - 114 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE: Public hearing to consider the
appeal of Jodyne Roseman, Trustee, from Notice and Order of the Building Official
to abate a con~nercial structure located at 114 East Lincoln Avenue, which has
been determined a dangerous building within the meaning of the Uniform Code
for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, in accordance with Section 501 (c)
of said Code, was continued from March 27, 1979, to this date.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that under the Anaheim Municipal Code,
the City Council was authorized to act as a Board of Appeals in cases where
the City Building Official declared a building to be unsafe and required
abatement. The Building Official, Mr. Lester King, pursuant to the provisions
of the Uniform Building Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, sent a
Notice and Order concerning the structure at 114 East Lincoln. He then asked
Deputy City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter to give a summary of the proceedings
and subsequently the Council would be acting as a Board of Appeals to determine
the proper course of action.
Mr. Malcolm Slaughter stated that based on information received from a private
structural engineer, the Building Official determined that the structure in
question was unsafe under the terms of the Unsafe Building Code and ordered
that the building be vacated or abated as a dangerous building by either
repair or demolition. Pursuant to the order, they had correspondence and dis-
cussions with Ms. Jodyne Roseman, an attorney and also the Trustee as an owner
of the property and a beneficiary of the Trust. Subsequently, Ms. Roseman
filed an appeal, which the Council had before them, from the order of the Building
Official seeking determination as to the validity of the order and more spe-
cifically the time given in which to meet that order. Subsequent to that, and
as late as this afternoon, he discussed the matter with Ms. Roseman who was
present in the chamber, and she indicated she was in accord with the Building
Official that the building was, in fact, substandard and a dangerous building
pursuant to the terms of the Unsafe Building Code.
With that in mind, it appeared that the only thing left before the Board of
Appeals, assuming Ms. Roseman stipulated to the fact, was the question of the
time in which to meet the order of the Building Official. They further dis-
cussed a 60-day extension of that order to June 1, 1979 and the Building
Department was not opposed to such an extension provided that two conditions
were met: (1) that the existing temporary barricade along Lincoln which was
installed by the City be upgraded and maintained in accordance with the re-
quirements of the Building Official, and (2) that the existing metal facade on
the front of the building be tied back to the building in a manner satisfactory
to the Building Official. It was further provided that should those conditions
not be met before April 15, 1979, then the extension be terminated and the
Notice and Order of the Building Official be reinstated and the conditions to
be abated by repair or demolition be completed on or before the date of April
17, 1979 which would be the new date of the Order. Mr. Slaughter suggested
that the Council might wish to inquire of Ms. Roseman if she was in agreement
with what he said.
79-373
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Jodyne Roseman, Trustee as owner of the property at 114 East Lincoln,
confirmed that Mr. Slaughter had correctly stated her position with regard to
the building, and she requested that the Council go along with his recommendation
to allow an additional 60 days so that they might assess their position with
regard to the building. In the mean time, they would comply with the two
requirements concerning the safety of that building.
MOTION: With the City Council acting as the Board of Appeals, Councilman
Seymour moved to:
(1) Affirm Notice and Order of the City Building Official that the building
located at 114 East Lincoln, Anaheim, is in a dangerous condition and that it
must be abated by repair or demolition.
(2) That pursuant to a stipulation entered into the record by owner and
appellant, the Board of Appeals hereby grants a 60-day extension on the order
of the City Building Official to and including June 1, 1979, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) That existing temporary barricades (installed on the premises by the
City) are upgraded and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the
City Building Official.
(b) The existing metal facade be tied back to the building in a manner
satisfactory to the City Building Official.
(3) Provided, that should (a) and (b) not be completed before April 15, 1979,
then this extension shall be terminated and the Notice and Order of the City
Building Official shall be reinstated and the conditions referred to in said
Order shall be abated by repair or demolition on or before April 17, 1979, the
effective date of the Order.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked Ms. Roseman if she agreed and
would stipulate to the foregoing motion, to which Ms. Roseman stated she agreed.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to add to the motion that the
City be held harmless.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney if he was satisfied with the wording of
the motion.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that he was satisfied with the motion, and he
would have to discuss with Ms. Roseman any further enhancement to the Stipulation.
Councilman Seymour then included in the motion to direct the City Attorney to
prepare a written Order for the Board to be sent by certified mail. Council-
man Roth was agreeable to that inclusion in his second.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether they could add a clause to hold the City
harmless in the event anything occurred.
Mr. Slaughter answered it would require Ms. Roseman's agreement to that condition
in the Stipulation and the Order.
79-374
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Roseman stated if they wished to get into the facts that led to the Stipula-
tion, she could do so. A great deal of the problem she was now facing was a
result of what she considered negligence on the part of the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency. It was for that reason why at this time she did not feel that she was
in a position to indemnify the City for what she felt was a dangerous condition
brought about by the negligence of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency.
Mayor Seymour stated that, in other words, what Ms. Roseman was saying to
Councilwoman Kaywood's query was, "no," to which Ms. Roseman stated that was
correct.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the addition. MOTION
CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-26A: In accordance with application
filed by Anaheim Plaza Building, Ltd., public hearing was held on the proposed
abandonment of the City's existing right to limit vehicular access from Bella
Vista Street to the applicant's property, located at the northerly terminus of
Bella Vista Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-148, duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated February 12, 1979 and the recommendation by
the Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment.
Applicant has requested the abandonment based on his requirement to meet Condition
No. 8 of the Reclassification No. 76-77-48. Item No. 8 states that the owner
shall apply for and pay costs of an abandonment by the City of the vehicular
access right to Bella Vista Street. He must have the access right because he
had extended Bella Vista Street ~nto his property. The extension includes
dedication and construction of standard cul-de-sac which have been completed.
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 Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file and EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-193 for adoption approving Abandonment
No. 78-26A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-193: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO BELLA
VISTA STREET. (78-26A)
79-375
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 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-193 duly passed and adopted.
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - FIFTH YEAR
APPLICATION: Public hearing was held to obtain the views and preferences of
residents and to establish a proposed application for Fifth-Year Community
Development Block Grant activities.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the subject Fifth-year application
which had been discussed and input received at previous hearings. There being
no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-194 for adoption authorizing
submission of the Community Development Block Grant Fifth-Year application for
the A-95 review process. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-194: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN APPLICATION
FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1977.
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-194 duly passed and adopted.
111: OPPOSITION TO STANDBY CONSERVATION PLAN MO. 1: Councilwoman Kaywood
stated after last week's meeting wherein the subject was discussed, she had
a draft letter drawn rather than a resolution and in the interest of time and
the seriousness of the matter, she asked that the Council take the opportunity
to raad the letter and approve it at today's meeting, rather than continuing it
another week.
Mayor Seymour asked Councilwoman Kaywood to point out to the Council how her
letter differed from the resolution received from the Chamber of Commerce.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that after reading the resolution, it was her
feeling that it expressed the fact that they did not want to have a gasoline
shortage, without addressing the real problem.
MOTION: Councilman Roth suggested and, moved to send a letter to Governor
Brown, as well as approving the Chambers resolution to be sent to all California
legislators and to all other cities in the County. Councilman Kott seconded
the motion for the purpose of discussion.
79-376
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated there were factual points brought out in the
letter based on previous experience, that did~not exist in the resolution.
Councilman Kott stated it was his feeling there were points that were not
included in either the resolution or the letter, and he thereupon expressed
his views relative to the alleged gasoline shortage, basically that he did
not believe there was such a shortage.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood had asked if Councilman Roth would have any objection to
attaching the proposed letter to the resolution. Since there was no answer,
the Mayor confirmed it was not included as part of the motion, but that her
letter would be sent to the Governor.
131: CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA: Request by Joel Guerena, Chairman of the People
for Community Development Committee, requesting use of La Palma Park and the
Martin Recreation Center for the annual Cinco De Mayo Fiesta, to be held
April 27-29, 1979, and requesting financial assistance for said Fiesta.
Mrs. Margaret Sullivan, 1122 West Diamond, requested to speak to the matter
and asked why the group was requesting financial assistance for the Fiesta.
The Mayor answered there were also other groups in the City who from time to
time were funded by the City Council, such as the Halloween Festival Committee,
the Sister Cities Committee, the Pacific Western States Band Review, etc. Thus,
financial support had been provided other groups in the City in the past. The
policy relative to the Cinco De Mayo Festival was that the City not simply
make a contribution, but that the Committee submit the bills they had incurred,
and the City agreed to provide funding up to a certain level. As he recalled
for the last two years, they had funded up to $1,500 each year.
Mrs. Sullivan answered that other Fiestas and groups were concerned with the
whole City and the Cinco De Mayo Festival seemed to deal mostly with the Mexican
population, and she wanted to know why they were always getting special favors.
The Mayor explained that the entire community was invited to the affair, and it
was not exclusive to one group or another.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in the past the Cinco De Mayo Festival was a
very positive Fiesta and many people attended from long distances in the County.
It had been a good affair for the Mexican-American community. She was concerned,
however, that with Proposition 13 they should be able to become self-supporting.
She wanted to know if they were asking because they had done so in the past,
or if it would be possible for them to raise the money themselves.
79-377
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth was of the opinion that it would be next to impossible for
them to raise funds.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved to approve the request for the use of La Palma
Park and the Martin Recreation Center for the annual Cinco De Mayo Fiesta to
be held April 27-29, 1979 and the request for financial assistance for said
Fiesta. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked the City Attorney how the matter could
properly be handled.
Mr. Hopkins explained that in previous years with respect to the Cinco De Mayo
activity, they made an agreement with the organization and the co-sponsoring
of the event by the City was implied in that agreement. If the Council wished
to direct the City Attorney to prepare such agreement, he would make the same
arrangement as in the past.
Councilman Kott stated that was included in the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that part of the agreement was that the money not go
to any religious activities included as a part of the Fiesta; Mr. Hopkins
stated that was so stipulated and it would be carefully controlled.
Councilman Overholt stated that also consistent with Proposition 13 and even
though the City co-sponsored the event, it would be appropriate for some kind
of proposed budget to be submitted to the Council so that they could make a
more intelligent decision.
Councilman Kott also made that stipulation as part of the motion, that a
proposed budget be submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood also noted that the request was submitted in the name of
the People for Community Developmen~ t~is year, whereas they did not exist before.
City Clerk Linda Roberts reported the previous committee who co-sponsored the
Fiesta with the City was the Fremont Parent Advisory Committee under a Ceta
Title II program.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know why they were not the co-sponsoring group
this year; no answer could be provided.
The Mayor stated he believed it was very positive that the People for Community
Development were involved. That committee was founded out of the events that
took place at Little People's Park, and he maintained the proposed action was a
positive public posture to take because (1) it was recognizing that Committee
and (2) the entire City and community was invited to participate in the Cinco
De Mayo festivities.
Councilman Overholt stated for the purposes of the agreement, the Council should
know what organization was involved and the Chairman of that organization.
79-378
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they would have to know the organization
and the officers who would be authorized to sign the agreement.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including directing the City
Attorney to prepare an agreement to include the same arrangements as in the
past, with the City co-sponsoring the event including financial assistance up to
$1,500, with a proposed budget to be submitted to the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
105/140: LIBRARY BOARD BY-LAWS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by
Councilwoman Kaywood, the revised by-laws of the Library Board submitted
under memorandum dated March 23, 1979 from the City Librarian, were approved
as recon~nended. MOTION CARRIED.
131: SOUND BARRIERS - ROUTE 57 FREEWAY: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that
a letter was received stating that construction of sound barriers on the Route
57 Freeway would commence in late May accelerated from a projected starting
date of late June and it was to be a 10 month project. She was hopeful that
the information would be announced in the newspaper to inform the residents of
the area that the barriers would be installed from Ball Road to just south of
the Riverside Freeway.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-25 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CONDITION: Santa Anita
Development Company, requesting a waiver of Condition (e) of Reclassification
No. 73-74-25 requiring the developer to construct a traffic signal at the
intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Avenida Margarita.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained the sequence of events that took place
when the item had been processed ~.hrough the Planning Commission, the Council
and subsequently the Building Permit stage. He stated that somehow the property
was double assessed because it was ~eclassed prior to the time of the assessment
fee and the building permits were issued with the stipulation of assessment.
The recommendation, therefore, was to rescind the assessment since the condition
was placed prior to that. Also at that time, Mr. Ben Yorba, who stipulated to
the construction of the signal, was the owner of all four corners of the inter-
section and it was upon that re~lassification that the condition was placed.
The particular traffic signal, by 1978 projected traffic counts, would satisfy
the warrants of interruption or continuous traffic due to those turning left
who would be using the shopping center and also the street to the south. If
the signal was not approved and they only accepted the assessment, the construction
of the signal would be postponed for some years because it would have to fit
into their priority list, and oth~r signals had a higher priority.
Mr. David Powell, Vice-President of i)esign and Construction, Santa Anita Develop-
ment Corporation, 363 San Miguel Drive, Newport Beach, stated that his letter
(March 21, 1979) capsulized the fa~ts in the situation, but for purposes of
clarification, he relayed the following: they presented their shopping center
to the City and the plans under Reclassification No. 73-74-25 was approved by the
Planning Commission on January 3, 1977 and the City Council on January 25, 1977.
Condition (e) on which they were asking a waiver did not clarify the requirement
to construct the traffic signals, but it did require them to pay for that signal.
79-379
City Hall,. ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
When it came time for the issuance of Building Permits, they approached the
Building Division prepared to pay on that day the $40,000 required. They were
told that the City Council had passed an action setting up an assessment fee
schedule, and therefore they would not be required to pay $40,000, but instead
an assessment based on the square footage of the building they were developing
and if there were any subsequent phase II and III developments, they would
have to pay a like assessment based on square footage. The assessment fee
paid at that time was $363 per 1000 square feet, or $10,527. From that point,
they went to construction and had no knowledge or idea that Condition (e) was
still in effect until the final clearance for their buildings. At that time,
they were told that in addition to the normal requirements, when they constructed
the traffic signals, they would be allowed to open their business. That presented
a problem and the reason they were before the Council today was to ask for a
waiver of Condition (e). They were prepared to comply with the $40,000 payment
to pay for the traffic signal in 1977 and in that time, costs had escalated
considerably. As a condition of approval for the development, they did in
fact, design the traffic signal. Upon the approval, which was some time after
the initial building permits were issued, there was no mention to either them
or their designer, Herman Kimmel, that they would ever be required to either
pay for or build the traffic signal itself. They provided the plan so that
at whatever time the City saw f£t to build the signal, they would have the
plans available to them. They felt they had complied with the City Council's
wishes at that time and now to be required to pay for what was perhaps $65,000
to $70,000 to be harsh treatment, since they were turned down in their desire
to pay the original $40,000 as required two years prior.
Mr. Singer stated all he could add was that Condition (e) clearly stated that
the property owner shall pay for the installation of the traffic signal, not
just the construction costs.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the approval was contingent upon having a traffic
signal installed because otherwise it would be a very dangerous situation.
Mr. Singer answered "yes" and that was the reason for the inclusion of the Condition
in the reclassification.
biayor Seymour asked Mr. Poweil when it was he attempted to pay the $40,000.
Mr. Powell indicated it was approximately January to February 1978.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Singer what the signal might have cost in 1978.
Mr. Singer answered approximately $40,000 and it could have been $45,000.
Mr. Powell stated for their own edification when the signal was designed, they
put it out to competitive bid to three large electrical contractors, and the
low bid was $64,900 and that was six to seven months ago.
The Mayor stated that equity was missing in the situation. If the developer
was told that he did not have to pay $40,000 but instead pay only on a square
footage basis, he probably would have paid $40,000 to $45,000 rather than
79-380
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri~ 3,. 1979~ i:30~P.M.
what he might have to pay today which would be $64,000 or $65,000. The City
could then apply or rescind what was already paid in fees and that would
bring the situation back to the original agreement.
Mr. Powell stated he would be agreeable to taking the balance of what they had
already paid against the $40,000. He then started to suggest the possibility
of continuing the assessment fee schedule to the point that if additional
property was developed in the area, when Mayor Seymour interrupted and stated
that Mr. Powell should not try to "work" the Council. He made a deal and he
should live with it. To try for more than that, was not fair.
Mr. Powell then stated he would agree to paying $40,000; Mayor Seymour stated
that the amount was $45,000 according to what he heard.
City ManagerTalley stated he would prefer to ask the Planning Director to submit
a report because the staff report indicated there was no intent to create a
double assessment. Other than Mr. Powell's statement, he would like to know from
the Planning Director when the plans were submitted that Mr. Powell was, in fact,
advised that he would not have to pay for the traffic signal. The report stated
staff thought that they were going to get both, not that it was stated the developer
did not have to pay for the traffic signal under any circumstances. He wanted the
Planning Department/Building Division to address that question because in point
of equity, it would be costing the City approximately $20,000. He reiterated he
wanted the Building Division to affirm that the developer offered to pay, and
they turned him down. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, consideration of the subject request was continued one week. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Kott, 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 payment
allowed:
a. Claim submitted by Steven Smith for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of an incident at the Anaheim Convention Center on or about December 15,
1978.
b. Claim submitted by Margaret M. Graham for vehicle damages purportedly
sustained as a result of an unmarked excavation in street on or about March 5,
1979.
c. Claim submitted by Patricia L. Richards for vehicle damages purportedly
sustained as a result of flood damage causing street damage, on or about
February 1, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Kimberly Ann Marie Gilmore for personal property damage,
purportedly sustained as a result of a collision with a City vehicle on or about
March 2, 1979, was allowed in the amount of $659.46.
79-381
~ity Hal~.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. 105: CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received
and filed:
a. Community Center Authority - Minutes of March 19, 1979.
b. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 14, 1979.
c. Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of March 15, 1979.
d. Library Board - Minutes of February 21, 1979.
e. Library Board - Monthly Report for February 1979.
f. Youth Commission - Minutes of March 14, 1979.
g. Public Utilities Board - Minutes of February 1, 1979.
h. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 21, 1979.
i. Project Area Committee - Minutes of March 13, 1979.
j. HACMAC - Minutes of March 13, 1979.
MOTION CARRIED.
158: DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-195 for
adoption accepting deeds of easement. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-195: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Shamrock
Contractors, Inc.; Charles B. Caldwell; Arthur Herbert Shipkey, et ux.)
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-195 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held March 12, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-31: Submitted by City of Anaheim, for a change
in zone from County A-1 to RS-A-43,000 on property located on the south side
of Omega Avenue on the west side of Sunkist Street, north of Winston Road and
south of Ball Road.
Reclassification No. 78-79-31 was withdrawn by the Petitioner.
79-382
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3., 1979, 1:30 P.M.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-33, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520 AND EIR NO. 211:
Submitted by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000
(SC) to RS-HS-22,000, Portion A, on property located on the southwest and
southeast corner of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road; and to add an open
space lot to an existing 18-lot subdivision, Portion B, on property located on
the east side of Hidden Canyon Road, south of Serrano Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-48, granted
Reclassification No. 78-79-33 and certified EIR No. 211 and approved Tentative
Tract No. 8520, Revision No. 2.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-34: Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a change
in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-HS-43,000 on property located southeast of
the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-47, granted
Reclassification No. 78-79-34 and granted negative declaration status.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-35 AND VARIANCE NO. 3081: Submitted by Frank
and Marion Malavarsic, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL to establish
an office use in an existing structure on property located at 102 North Evergreen
Street with code waivers of: (a) location of vehicle parking, (b) maximum struc-
tural height, (c) minimum landscaped setback.
Reclassification No. 78-79-35 and Variance No. 3081 were withdrawn by the
Petitioner.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1950: Submitted by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
to permit an off-site tract identification sign on RS-43,000(SC) property
located at Hidden Canyon Road approximately 210 feet southeast of the center-
line of Serrano Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-49, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1950 and granted negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1951: Submitted by Kay Lopin, to permit a
social club with age restrictions on CL zoned property located at 1665 South
Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-50, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 1951 and granted negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1970: Submitted by Consolidated Capital Realty
Investors, to retain a van customizing facility on ML zoned property located
at 1808 North National Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-52, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1970 and granted negative declaration status.
79-383
City Hall~.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - A~ril 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3080: Submitted by Phyllis J. Dow, to retain an existing
garage conversion with waiver of the minimum number and type of parking spaces
on RS-7200 zoned property loacted at 1173 West Locust Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-53, denied Variance
No. 3080 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1740 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Kay
Brown, Keystone Mortgage Company, requesting termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1740, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property
located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State
College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-54, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1740.
10. VARIANCE NO. 1551 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Ulysses E. Bauer,
requesting termination of Variance No. 1551, to permit a real estate office in
conjunction with a single-family dwelling on CL zoned property located at 735
South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-55, terminated
Variance No. 1551.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-50 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Bruce
Elieff, Sun-Cai Investment Company, requesting an extension of time to
Reclassification No. 77-78-50, proposed RM-4000 zoned property located on the
west side of Magnolia Avenue, approximately 325 feet north of the centerline
of Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 77-78-50, to expire April 24, 1980.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1843 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS:
Submitted by Ulysses E. Bauer, requesting approval of specific plans for
Conditional Use Permit No. 1843, to permit a 47-unit, 2-building expansion of
an existing 29-unit motel on property located at 733 and 735 South Beach
Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved specific plans for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1843.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1931 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS:
Submitted by James Liberio, requesting approval of revised plans for Conditional
Use Permit No. 1931, to permit the establishment of three commercial uses in an
existing industrial building on ML zoned property located at 1050 Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1931.
79-384
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.April 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1942 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC LAND
SCAPING PLAN: Submitted by Beam Investment Company, requesting approval of a
specific landscaping plan for Conditional Use Permit No. 1942, to permit a truck
rental facility in the ML zone of property located at the southeast corner of La
Jolla Street and Red Gum Street.
The City Planning Commission approved the specific landscaping plan for Conditional
Use Permit No. 1942.
15. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10387 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted
by Mike Van Daele, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10387, to
establish a 2-lot subdivision with one CL zoned lot and one 30-unit, RM-4000 zoned
condominium lot.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to'Tentative Tract No.
10387 to expire November 8, 1980.
16. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 9744, 9745 AND 9601 - REPORT ON EQUESTRIAN TRAILS:
Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting acknowledgement that the review
requirement relating to the Planning Commission's decision to delete the eques-
trian trails within Tract Nos. 9744, 9745 and 9601 by the Riding and Hiking Trail
Committee and the Hill and Canyon Mumicipal Advisory Committee.
The City Planning Commission acknowledged the report on equestrian trails within
Tentative Tract Nos. 9744, 9745 and 9601.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1098 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS:
Request by Myron M. Reichert for approval of apecific plans for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1098, to establish a mobile home park with a waiver of minimum required
setback on property located at the southeast corner of Jackson Avenue and Park
Vista Street, approximately 1330 feet of the centerline of Rio Vista Street.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, specific plans under
Conditional Use Permit No. 1098 were approved, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 3992 - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - DEFINITION OF "TRAILER PARK":
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3992 for first reading, as recommended
by the Planning Commission, to include recreational vehicles within the definition
of a "trailer park".
ORDINANCE NO. 3992: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A DEFINITION OF
"TRAILER PARK" TO SECTION 18.01.210 OF CHAPTER 18.01, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE.
ORDINANCE NO. 3993 AND 3994: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3993
and 3994 for first reading.
79-385
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apr.il 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3993: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-55(9), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3994: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(25), ML)
114: COMMENTS ON THE PASSING OF CARROLL ROSENBLOOM: Councilman Overholt
complimented Mayor Seymour on his public statement made yesterday, April 2, 1979
on the death of Carroll Rosenbloom. He, too, was privileged to have had what
contact he had with Mr. Rosenbloom, along with Mr. Talley and the Mayor during
the Rams negotiations. He believed there were certain people with whom a person
came in contact in their lifetime that they would never forget, and Mr. Rosenbloom
was one of those people. His love of life and sense of humor transcended every-
thing he did. Councilman Overholt also stated that he felt confident about the
City's future with the Rams Organization and if Steve Rosenbloom, Carroll's son,
was going to ascend to the Presidency, he was very impressed with him as he
showed tremendous skill and maturity and many other characteristics displayed
by his father.
Mayor Seymour agreed that Carroll Rosenbloom was a super human being to everybody
who knew him or touched him and Mr. Talley, Councilman Overholt and he saw for
themselves his love for people. Mr. Rosenbloom would truly be missed.
114: OPENING OF FAMILY HEALTH PLAN FACILITY: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on
the ribbon cutting ceremony which she attended on Thursday, March 29, 1979 for the
new Family Health Plan facility on North Magnolia, one of the HMOs th& City
contracted, with serving 150 City employees who were members. She commenced that
it was a very fine facility and a good addition to Anaheim, where private enter-
prise was helping to solve the high cost of medicine. The dental, optometry, and
opthalmology services still remained in the smaller building at the corner of
Magnolia and La Palma.
111: HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she
attended the first meeting of the Halloween Festival Committee yesterday morning
at 8:00 A.M. She stated the Committee requested the parking meters and old
street lights, when removed from the downtown area, to be used as fund raisers.
She suggested that the City Attorney and City Manager work out an agreement in
exchange for the Committee services. She also wanted to be certain that they
reserved one or two of each of the items for the museum and the Mother Colony
History Room and if they were to have a Heritage Square, the street lights would
be useful.
Mayor Seymour asked staff if they needed any official action from the Council
to accomplish the requested actions.
City Attorney Hopkins stated a motion would be in order to direct the City
Attorney and City Manager to negotiate an agreement pursuant to the disposition
of the parking meters and light standards for the Halloween Committee.
79-386
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ap.ril 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the City Attorney and City Manager
to negotiate an agreement with the Halloween Festival Committee pursuant to the
disposition of parking meters and ligbt standards and to subsequently submit
the proposed agreement and report to the Council for final consideration and
decision. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that those items should
be surplus. She reiterated that one or two of each would be for museum purposes
and if there was a Heritage Square where the Clendenen's were restoring the
old Cahen house, to use those street lights in that section. She wanted to
be sure those items were reserved for those purposes, and she was referring to
any surplus beyond that for the Halloween Festival Committee.
Mayor Seymour stated he sensed what Councilwoman Kaywood was trying to do, but
he had no idea of the value of the street lights.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they did not know the value of the street lights,
but on the parking meters they had solicited sealed bids in the past and the
first bid offered was $1.43 each; therefore, the bids were rejected. Subsequently
a bid of $10 was accepted and some of the people on the Committee were of the
opinion that even more could have been obtained. She suggested that the Committee
pay $10 as well.
The Mayor stated it was necessary to receive a report on the matter because it
would be embarassing for the Council if, for example, $50,000 worth of public
property was involved; Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she did not have
any intention of doing that~
City Attorney Hopkins stated the items would be surplus items only and the
Purchasing Agent would determine a valuation, and he would submit a report
and an agreement.
Mayor Seymour was agreeable.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including a report from the City
Attorney and City Manager f~r final consideration and decision. MOTION CARRIED.
105: HACMAC NEWSLETTER: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to HACMAC minutes of
March 13, 1979, specifically the statement, "...for any input from them for
this week's newsletter column." To he~' recollection, at the Liaison meeting
she and the Mayor had with HACMAC, they disapproved a news column.
The Mayor stated that was on a newsletter, but not on a newspaper column. He
had seen the column included in the News-Times, but to the best of his knowledge,
they were not publishing a newsletter.
Ms. Santalahti confirmed that it was a newspaper column and not a newsletter.
111: CLOSING OF GAS STATIONS ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS: Councilman Roth reported
that on Friday, March 30, 1979 he attended the Chamber of Commerce meeting wherein
they discussed opposition to the closing of gas stations on Saturdays and Sundays.
A number of excellent speakers were also in attendance, along with John Briggs and
Ross Johnson for what turned out to be a very positive meeting.
79-387
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 3,. 1979, 1:30 P.M.
114: SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR PLANT: Councilman Kott stated that in view of the
nuclear problem which occurred back East and with the present mood of the Nation
toward nuclear generation, that it would not be prudent for the City at this
point to continue to invest in San Onofre until it was ascertained what was
happening. However, if San Onofre could be shown to be a paying entity, he
would have no objection to it, but the situation should be evaluated at this
time. He was not suggesting withdrawal, but perhaps consideration of a mora-
torium while having the adminstration or staff evaluate the situation to see
what the future might hold before any more money was invested.
The Mayor stated he did not think they should panic at the moment or make any
precipitous decision that could greatly increase the cost of San Onofre to the
taxpayer. He was interested in Governor Brown's posture and although it was
known that the Governor was anti-nuclear plant of almost any kind, even he
excluded San Onofre from his concerns. He maintained they should wait before
making any decision to hear of the final explanations, reasons and justifications
for what occurred in Pennsylvania at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant. There
was no danger to either lives or property from San Onofre.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
Adjourned: 5:25 P.M.
LIND~ D. ROBERTS, CI%Y CLERK