1977/03/1577-294
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Ca. lifornia - COUNCIL MEMBERS - March 15, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth aBd Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ~t~NAGER: Rick Mattessich
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Thomas Liegler
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST: Dave Latshaw
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Ed Armendariz of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A unanimously adopted resolution supporting the 10th Annual
YMCA Good Friday Breakfast was issued by Mayor Thom and accepted by Mr. Ray Hansen
of the YMCA.
MII~TES: On motion by Councilwoman Kmywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes
of the ~egular meeting held February 1, 1977, were approved. MOTION CA~IED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive
the reading,~in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver
of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of Such ordinance or
resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $940,436.70, in accordance
with the 1976-77 Budget, were approved.
123: CROCKER NATIONAL BANK CREDIT AGREEMENT: In his memorandum dated March 8,
1977, Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, presented
a recommendation to approve a Credit Agreement for the term ending June 30, 1977,
with Crocker National Bank, providing for a low interest Rehabilitation Loan Pro-
gram under the Community Development Block Grant Program. In response to Council-'
man Kott's inquiry, Mr. Priest explained that under the contract there is a specific
account established with Community Development Block Grant Funds for defaults. In
the event of a default, the bank may collect only up to the amount of the default.
The City Attorney~ in answer to Councilman Kott, explained that the City waives its
defense of estopppel or laches due to some reason where we would be able to defend
77-295
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
against a particular claim on the basis that the bank had done something that
should have not been done or waited too long to bring a claim to the City's
attention. He further explained that in exchange for waiver of the defense of
estoppel of laches, the City had gained a favorable interest rate for loans,
however, the statute of limitation had not been waived.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-169 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-169: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A CREDIT AGREEMENT WITH CROCKER NATIONAL
BANK AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BAHALF
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-169 duly passed and adopted.
In explanation of his "No" vote, Councilman Kott explained that he is in accord
with the concept, however, not with the terms of the agreement itself.
Councilman Seymour expressed the opinion that the agreement permits private enter-
prise, rather than government, to help finance home improvements, thereby fostering
the City's Neighborhood Preservation Program. He explained that Crocker was chosen
because their program was financially better as far as costs, their ability to pro-
cess loans in relationship to other banks considered, and their record in a similar
program in the area.
150: PARKS RECREATIONAND THE ARTS DEPARTMENT~ RECREATION DIVISION REORGANIZATION:
The City Manager presented a recommendation to reorganize the Recreation Division,
as outlined by the Parks, Recreation and Arts Director in his memorandum dated
March 4, 1977, and noted that the Park and Recreation Commission and he concurred
with the recommendation.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, reorganization of the
Recreation Division of the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department was approved, as
outlined in the Director's report dated March 4, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 77R-170 and 77R-171 for adoption, implementing
the reoganization. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-170: A RESOLUTION OF~THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CREATING A NEW RECREATION CLASS AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-682.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CREATING NEW RECREATION CLASSES AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-681.
77-296
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-170 and 77R-171 duly passed and adopted.
123: CONTINUATION OF CALIFORNIA DENTAL SERVICE FOR BALANCE OF CALENDAR YEAR:
Mr. Talley referred to memorandum dated March 8, 1977, from Personnel Director
Garry McRae, recommending that the California Dental Service (CDS) group dental
plan be continued for the balance of the calendar year.
Councilman Kott questioned the length of time it took for staff to respond to the
Council's request of December 7, 1976, to solicit additional bids for a dental
contract, as well as the feasibility of instituting a self-insured program. He
also noted the fact that by May 1, 1977, most employees would have paid their
deductible for the year; therefore, a new deductible would be imposed if a new
program were adopted.
Personnel Director McRae first explained the reasons for the delay and then emphasized
that requests for proposals included a statement indicating that any deductibles
already accepted, satisfying the January 1, 1977, through December 31, 1977, deduc-
tible, would be accepted by the replacement plan so there would be no change
in benefits to employees.
Councilman Kott voiced his opinion that in the letters written by the Employee
Associations supporting continuation of the CDS Plan, it was not understood that
the deductible would be assumed as he had spoken to one employee who had written
a letter who did not understand the ramifications of the plan.
Further discussion followed between Councilman Kott and Mr. McRae wherein it was
confirmed that the Dental Plan negotiated two years prior with CDS was the same
plan proposed to be continued. Irrespective of possible savings in changing from
the present plan to another, the Associations did not feel comfortable in doing so
in the middle of a contract, and further, that negotiations were a function of
general employee relations. Mr. McRae also confirmed that the amendments CDS pro-
posed to be added to the contract in December, 1976, were not incorporated because,
as Councilman Kott pointed out, they were withdrawn as a result of his (Kott) dis-
satisfaction with the amendments and subsequent communication of this dissatisfac-
tion to CDS.
Councilman Kott stated that since there was a number of plans available, a decision
should be made by January, 1978, whereby all companies would then be on an equal
basis since no assumption of a deductible would be involved.
Mr. McRae indicated the Employee Associations wanted the same thing and their
letter stated they intended to discuss the whole matter of dental coverage in
their negotiations in the Fall with the goal of improving those plans for imple-
mentation in January, 1978.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Kott indicated that his objection
involved service from the point of view of the employees, employee associations,
the City, and as a provider. If the plan was not a good one from a provider's
77-297
City..Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
standpoint, inferior care would be the result. He took issue with the CDS Plan
in that he knew people from at least a half dozen offices who indicated that CDS
was the worst plan and the reason why the employees were unhappy with it was due
to the matter of the deductible and that was what he had been told. Councilwoman
Kaywood's information from other providers was CDS was the best coverage for employees.
Mr. McRae stated that after negotiations with the employee organizations in the Fall,
when conclusions would be reached on the schedule of benefits they would like to
see for the next year, proposals would then be solicited accordingly.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, continuance of California
Dental Service for the balance of the calendar year was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
153: MEDICAL FACILITY - PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND ANNUAL PHYSICALS: As chairman of the
City's General Safety Committee, Fire Chief James Riley spoke relative to the report
dated March 8, 1977, from the Committee wherein it was recommended that the City
Council approve the selection of Johnston-Gendel Medical Associates as the medical
facility to perform the City's pre-employment and annual physicals for 1977. He
briefed the Council on the report, as well as the reasons why the Committee chose
Johnston-Gendel over the five other proposals received, which recommendation was not
based primarily on cost structure. Chief Riley also clarified for Councilman Seymour,
specifically why some of the respondents were not acceptable in order to justify the
approximate $14,000 a year more in cost compared to the low bidder.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, selection of Johnston-
Gendel Medical Associates as the medical facility to perform pre-employment and
annual physicals for the City for 1977 was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 3665: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3665 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3665: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PARKING. (no parking, both sides of Armando Street between its northerly
terminus and La Palma Avenue)
169: WORK ORDER NO. 782-B - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - AHFP NO. 837: On motion by
Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, acceptance of a bid by
C. W. Poss, Inc., Contractor for additional work to be performed as Change
Order No. 1 in the amount of $38,087.17, to Work Order No. 782-B, Fairmont
Boulevard, north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, AHFP No. 837, was authorized and
approved, as recommended in memorandum dated March 4, 1977, from the City
Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
159: PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS - PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES: Councilman Thom offered
Resolution No. 77R-172 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 8,
1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ASCERTAINING AND DETERMINING THE PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES TO BE PAID FOR EACH
CRAFT, OR TYPE OF WORKMAN, OR MECHANIC NEEDED FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM.
*See Minutes of April 17, 1977, Page 77-
77-298
C~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywoood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-172 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT - SALE OF ADVERTISING FOR ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD:
Stadium-
Convention Center-Golf Director Tom Liegler briefed the Council on his report
dated March 2, 1977, relative to the sale of exclusive advertising space at
Anaheim Stadium. He then presented Mr. Jack Samuels, a professional, independent
sales marketing man, with whom he recommended the approval of a six-month contract
to represent the City of Anaheim in the sale of exclusive advertising space on
the scoreboard.
Mr. Jack Samuels, 17817 La Costa, Huntington Beach, stated that the exclusive
advertising space at Anaheim Stadium was a saleable commodity and a matter of
finding a national advertiser who would make a commitment in Anaheim.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-173 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JACK K. SAMUELS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF ADVERTISING FOR ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
· he Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-173 duly passed and adopted.
123: INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE AGREEMENT: Councilman Seymour offered
Resolution No. 77R-174 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 4,
1977, from the Utilities Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER
AND POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES FOR INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ANAHEIM UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-174 duly passed and adopted.
77-299
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
123: AMENDMENT TO UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-5028 WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-175 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated March 3, 1977, from the Utilities Director. Refer to Reso-
lution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-175: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO UTILITIES
AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-5028 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION).
(Santa Ana Freeway between Chapman and Orangewood at Walnut)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-175 duly passed and adopted.
175: TRANSMISSION AGREEMENT~ UNITS 2 & 3 IN SAN ONOFRE: Mayor Thom explained that~
a letter had been received from two members of the Public Utilities Board requesting
a joint meeting with the Council to consider a recommendation of the Board regard-
ing entering into the subject Transmission Agreement.
Utilities Director Hoyt stated that the matter had been discussed with the Public
Utilities Board, and the Utilities Department was preparing the recommendation of
the Board requesting authorization to send a letter to Southern California Edison
indicating the City's desire and intent to participate in Units 2 & 3 in San Onofre.
Further discussion followed wherein it was ascertained that the $50.7 million
estimated for the project was part of Proposition "A", although there was no mention
of any particular project so it was not specifically voted on by the people. It
was also deemed appropriate that R. W. Beck and Associates, Consultant, be invited
to the meeting.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, a joint meeting with
the Public Utilities Board was set for March 29, 1977, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council
Chamber to consider the City's participation in a Transmission Agreement with
Southern California Edison in Units 2 and 3 in San Onofre. MOTION CARRIED.
139: AB 389~ HOUSING ELEMENT GUIDELINES: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilman Roth, support of AB 389, housing element guidelines for cities and
counties scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee on
March 22, 1977, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated March 8, 1977, from
David Latshaw, Legislative Analyst. MOTION CARRIED.
139: ACA 14~ INCOME AND PAYROLL TAXES PROHIBITION: At the request of Council-
man Kott, Mr. Latshaw explained the ramifications of ACA 14 as detailed in his
memorandum dated March 9, 1977, a provision of which included the imposition of
an employee license tax.
Councilman Kott stated that he wanted to go on record opposing a municipal, state
or federal government imposing a tax on an individual's income, particularly for
business licensing and, therefore, would have to cast a negative vote. It was his
opinion that no one on the Council should favor a tax to stay in business which was
related to his income.
77-300
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March. 15, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Discussion followed wherein Mr. Latshaw explained the sequence of events leading
up to the Bill and its specific application to the City of Oakland. When it was
found to be too broad in its implications, AB 349 was introduced which would not
only forfeit the employee income tax but also preclude any other similar measures
which might impact the City's ability to levy business license taxes based on gross
receipts which cities and counties were authorized to levy under the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
Councilman Seymour explained that he supported the opposition of ACA 14 on the
basis that State government should not tell the citizens of Anaheim how to con-
duct their local government.
Councilman Kott agreed and suggested that the City address that issue specifically
by indicating that Anaheim was opposed to State government interfering in all
areas pertaining to a Charter City. Councilman Seymour indicated he would accept
the amendment if the intent was to broaden the motion to include any interference
from the State relative to local government.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, opposition to ACA 14,
income and payroll taxes prohibition and any other similar measures that would
limit the revenue raising ability of charter cities was approved, such opposition
to include a statement that Anaheim opposes State government interference with
local government. MOTION CARRIED.
ANDY AND ANNIE ANAHEIM. CARTOON CHARACTERS - ASSIGNMENT OF ALL RIGHTS~ TITLE AND
INTEREST: City Attorney Hopkins explained that the cartoon characters of Andy
and Anni~ Anaheim, created by Walt Disney Productions, were licensed to the City
and Chamber of Commerce for use for a term of 20 years, which license expired on
June 20, 1976, as outlined in memorandum dated March 3, 1977. Walt Disney Pro-
ductions was now offering a permanent assignment to its title and interest to
the City and Chamber jointly. He also confirmed for Councilman Kott that a third
party would have to get permission from the City to use the characters and although
it could happen that approval might also have to be given by the Chamber, he did
not foresee that a request for such approval was likely to occur.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-176 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated March 3, 1977, from the City Attorney's Office. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 77R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING THE ASSIGNMENT OF ALL RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST TO T~E CARTOON CHARACTERS
NAMED ANDY ANAHEIM AND ANNIE ANAHEIM BY WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-176 duly passed and adopted.
77-301
..City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
123: RENEWAL OF LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: (Barre Villa
Park right of way) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-177 for adop-
tion as recommended in memorandum dated March 3, 1977 from the City Attorney's
Office. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR PARK PURPOSES. (N/S Freedman Way between
Hotel Way and Clementine)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-177 duly passed and adopted.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3666: City Attorney Hopkins explained that while the pro-
posed ordinance provided more flexibility relative to existing permit requirements
for dinner dancing places, it still gave the City a degree of protection, as outlined
in memorandum dated March 9, 1977.
Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3666 for first reading, as recommended by
the City Attorney in his subject memorandum.
ORDINANCE NO. 3666: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 4, CHAPTER
4.16, SECTION 4.16.050 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 14.16, SECTION 4.16.050 IN ITS PLACE RELATING TO DANCE PERMITS.
167: STOP SIGNS - NUTWOOD AND ORANGE AND FALMOUTH AND VENTURA: (continued from
March 8, 1977) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, it
was determined that stop sign installations at Nutwood Street and Orange Avenue
and at Falmouth Avenue and Ventura Street would not be removed from their present
location. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
150: WORK ORDER NOS. 845~ 851 AND 868 - PARK BUILDINGS AT SCHWEITZER~ RIO VISTA
AND JUAREZ PARKS: In answer to Councilman Kott, City Engineer Maddox explained
that his reason for recommending rejection of all bids in his memorandum dated
March 7, 1977, was due to the fact that those received were considerably over
the Engineer's estimate by approximately 60%. A redesign of the buildings was
proposed, and the architect was willing to do the redesign at no additional
cost and the matter was expected to be back to the Council in 30 days.
Mr. Gerald F. Prendergast, 161 South Janine Way, spoke relative to Rio Vista Park
in that the park was to have been developed and completed two years prior. He
was concerned over the inaction on the part of the Council in seeing that the park
was completed. He indicated that people moving into the area were still required
to pay park-in-lieu fees, that the neighborhood was entitled to a park and it was
long overdue. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Prendergast stated that other
than the park building, the play equipment and the lights needed to be completed
although he was not qualified to say what else had to be done. He also stated that
he was informed some months prior that the buildings were already under construction
and almost ready for delivery, as well as a promise and letter signed by the Parks,
Recreation and Arts Director that the park would be completed by April 1, 1977.
77-302
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that there were many unusual delays surrounding
the project which never occured before; however, work was ongoing to expedite
the matter.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-178 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH,
1977, FOR THE PARK BUILDINGS AT SCHWEITZER PARK, WORK ORDER NO. 845; RIO VISTA
PARK, WORK ORDER NO. 851 & JUAREZ PARK, WORK ORDER NO. 868.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-178 duly passed and adopted.
150: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 881 - BROOKHURST COMMUNITY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT -
PHASE I (EDA): Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-179 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-179: 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 FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT: BROOKHURST COMMUNITY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT - PHASE I, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 881. (Aldo's Landscaping - $107,347.98)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-179 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE TURF TRUCK REPLACEMENT - BID NO. 3171: On motion
by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of Mission Chemical
of San Diego was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $3,895.50, in-
cluding tax, as recommended by A. Merriam, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor, in his
memorandum dated March 9, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
Staff was requested to ascertain how the turf truck was damaged and the disposition
of the damaged vehicle.
105: VIOLENCE IN THE CITY: Mildred Campbell, 620 Gilbuck, Co-Chairman of the
Community Services Board, explained that at their meeting of February 24, 1977,
the Board was dismayed to learn the details of the recent stabbings at a dance at
the Martin Center. Subsequently on March 10, 1977, Police Chief Bastrup met with
77-303
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
the Board to discuss the situation and answer questions. Since time was limited,
the Board requested another visit from the Chief and a representative from the
Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department at their regular meeting so they could
participate in a round-table discussion to arrive at possible solutions to youth
violence in the City, as outlined in the Board's memorandum dated February 28, 1977.
Mrs. Campbell explained that Chief Bastrup was agreeable to such a meeting. At
this time she requested that no action be taken by the Council but wanted affirma-
tion that the proposed meeting was agreeable to the Council.
The Council concurred with the arrangements as stated.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2882: Application
by Loren, John and Howard Lukens and M.E.B. Investments, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 and CL to RM-1200 to construct a 27-unit apartment complex on property
located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Knott Street with code waivers of:
a) maximum building height
b) minimum distance between buildings (deleted)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-34, recommended that
the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and, further recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-28 be approved,
for 16 units on the easterly 95 feet of the property subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Ball Road for
street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Ball Road, in-
cluding preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such
as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities
or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the
City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Ball Road shall be installed
as required by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with standard
specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; or that a
bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the
installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum
of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Ball Road for tree planting purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
77-304
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
9. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of Public
Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights
granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council
unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or
such further time as the City Council may grant.
11. That Condition Nos. 4, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-35 granted Variance
No. 2882, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 76-77-28, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8
(Revision No. 1); provided, however, that prior to issuance of a building permit,
further revised plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval deleting the proposed wall along the west property line and indicating an
easement for common access between the subject property and the adjacent property
to the west consisting of a single, 30-foot maximum width access point on Ball Road
to serve both parcels, and said easement shall have a 3- to 4-foot wide landscaped
median with breaks, as determined to be appropriate for use by the residents of the
two parcels, as stipulated to by the petitioner; and, furthermore, the agreement for
the cormnon easement referred to herein shall be submitted to the City Attorney's
Office for review and approval and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date
hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
4. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zOning inspections.
77-305
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Marcb 151 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Miss Santalahti relative to the density as pointed
out on page 1-c of the staff report, Item No. 17, indicating that previous plans
to construct a 27-unit, 2-story apartment complex had a net density of 20.8 units
per acre and when the complex was reduced to 16 units, the net density became 26.6.
Miss Santalahti stated that the original proposal included a project on both the
easterly and westerly parcels of the property involved but after the property was
advertised, the westerly portion was deleted and the present plan was only applicable
to the easterly portion. The westerly lot was to be developed as a separate project
nder another reclassification.
Councilwoman Kaywood also asked if there was a fire wall in the roof of the carport
where "tucked-under" parking was involved.
Miss Santalahti indicated that she believed that to be so but would obtain confirmaA
tion to be certain a fire wall was included.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and satisfied
with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Doug Powrie, 3723 Birch Street, New-port Beach, stated he was satisfied with
the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project will
have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-180 for adoption authorizing the prepara-
tion of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested and Resolution No.
77R-181 granting Variance No. 2882, in part, subject to the conditions recommended
by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(76-77-28, RM-1200)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-181: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2882, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-180 and 77R-181 duly passed and adopted.
77-306 .,
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-36 AND VARIANCE NO. 2905: Application
by Calvin and Wilhelmina Meekhof, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200
to construct a 29-unit apartment complex on property located at 911 South Western
Avenue with code waivers of:
a) Maximum building height
b) Minimum floor area
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-38 recommended that
the request for a negative declaration be denied for the subject proposal on the
basis that the proposal would have definite and significant individual and cumula-
tive and adverse environmental impacts on the subject property and surrounding land
uses, most specifically with respect to traffic and the intrusion of an extremely
dense project adjacent to single-family residential zones and land uses and, further
recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-36 be denied.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-39, recommended that
Variance No. 2905 be denied.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the
City Planning Commission.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Santalahti confirmed that on Page 4-b,
Item 8, of the staff report, Knott Street should be Western Avenue.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and wished to
speak.
Mr. William S. Phelps, 1095 North Main Street, Orange, Agent for the Applicant,
stated that after the Planning Commission meeting, it was decided that they would
reduce the density of the project from 29 to 27 units and although the revised plans
were now completed, he failed to get them to staff in time. He then gave an over-
view of the area and stated that the parcel involved was a difficult one in that
it was 95 feet by 618 feet abutting and adjoining varied and odd uses. He ex-
plained that in regard to the General Plan for the area of medium density residential
land uses, when he went to staff the project was thought to be well within the limi-
tations and desirability of usage. They were, therefore, asking nothing of conse-
quence with the exception of a technical waiver of 2-story buildings within 150 feet
of RS-A-43,000 and single family residential zoned properties.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Phelps indicated that reducing the density
from 29 to 27 would remove waiver "b" relative to minimum-sized apartments, and
they would consider developing 1-story garden-type apartments if that was the only
way the property could be developed.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak and commented first that numerous letters
and telegrams from citizens in the area were received in opposition to the proposed
project, all of which were incorporated and made a part of the record, the Council
being fully aware of their contents. He also ascertained by a show of hands that
there were approximately 20 people in the Council Chamber in opposition and asked
if there was a spokesman to synopsize this opposition.
77-307
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 152 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. James R. Coglin, 922 South Westchester, stated that although the petitioners
seemed to have made some concessions, in his opinion they were very negligible
and hardly worth mentioning. He maintained that 2-story apartments with a
density of 27 units were not appropriate for the area which was the major
thrust of their opposition. Another was the traffic problem at the intersection
of Ball Road and Western Avenue. He then briefed the Council on statistical
report relative to the high rate of traffic at the subject intersection, as
well as the dramatic increase in accidents which had occurred over the last
14 1/2 months. Mr. Coglin emphasized that any increase in high density
construction would add to the~already existing traffic problems.
Mr. John Donovan, 905 South Western Avenue, stated that he was a resident of the
area since 1950 and his property was immediately contiguous to the north of the
proposed complex. He explained that the neighborhood was not resisting growth or
change, but residents were present to assure the proposed growth was in the best
interest of the community. There would be no problem if the project were in
accord with the master plan of the City. The major objections presented by Mr.
Donovan were three-fold; (1) the request was an obvious unfair approach, to permit
2-story units within the 150-foot range of single-story homes and an agriculturally~
zoned piece of property, (2) undersized units on the property and, most important,
(3) the property was sufficiently in question to warrant an environmental impact
report being prepared.
For purposes of clarification, the Mayor explained that the City's Master Plan and
General Plan were two different things and what Mr. Donovan was referring to in
reality was the General Plan. He also summarized that the testimony presented
generally opposed the multi-story structure, the high density and traffic implica-
tions and, therefore, requested that further opposition should only involve some-
thing new and/or different as the Council was very much aware of the major thrust
of the opposition.
Mr. Royal Martin, 811 South Western Avenue, explained that he and his wife had
at one time withdrawn their request to build duplexes on the large parcel of land
they owned fronting Western Avenue in the immediate vicinity because some neighbors
expressed great concern that the project might not be desirable in terms of its
implications. Subsequently, they went to single-family residences because the
neighborhood, being a good and desirable one, justified that kind of development.
Mr. Don McGiffin, 3303 West Deerwood, stated that high density dwellings, particularly
of the 2-story variety, created an undesirable atmosphere contrary to the wishes of
residents who wanted to maintain a quiet residential neighborhood. He was of the
opinion building upward created a social problem. Mr. McGiffin explained the high
incidence of burglaries that occurred to a friend of his when living in or near
such dwellings. He himself lived in the subject neighborhood since 1957 and he
was opposed to high density construction of any variety since such projects tended
to create undesirable social problems.
In summation, Mr. Phelps stated he wanted the Council to indicate the direction
in which he should go relative to the project.
77-308 ,~.
--City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated it was quite clear that the residents were opposed to multi-story
apartments and suggested that duplexes or 4-plexes or garden type apartments might
meet with approval.
Mr. Phelps then requested a postponement in order to submit a one-story complex
for referral back to staff.
Councilman Seymour stated that the type of negotiation Mr. Phelps suggested should
have taken place at the Planning Commission and not negotiated at the Council level.
Any resubmittal should be initiated with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Phelps stated that if the project were denied, he could not go back to the
Planning Commission for 6 months whereupon Councilman Seymour indicated he should
have considered that when he was at the Planning Commission level.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Donovan stated that he would like to see well
designed garden apartments on the property which would be a movement forward within
the scope of the General Plan. For his own part, he intended to develop the rear
of his property with single-family private dwellings.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour indicated that the General Plan sets forth parameters for develop-
ment, in this case meaning one-story garden apartments. If the property were developed
accordingly, he would look favorably on it. However, he was critical of the activi-
ties of a developer using the Planning Commission as a pawn, accepting a denial, and
then appealing to the Council and turning a public hearing into a negotiating ground.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATUS: On motion by
Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council denied the nega-
tive declaration status exemption on this project as recommended by the City Planning
Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-182 for adoption denying Reclassifica-
tion No. 76-77-36 and Resolution No. 77R-183 for adoption denying Variance No. 2905.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-182: 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. (76-77-36)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-183: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2905.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-182 and 77R-183 duly passed and adopted.
77-309
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March. 15; 1977; 1:30 P.M.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 76-12A: Application by Thomas Talbot, Shaw
and Talbot, to abandon an existing public utility easement located north of
La Palma Avenue, east of Tustin Avenue.
The City Planning Commission reported that the Planning Director had determined
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 an
EIR and further recommended approval of Abandonment No. 76-12A.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; 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 re-
quirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-184 for adoption approving Abandonment
No. 76-12A in accordance with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-184: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(NO. 76-12A, NORTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, EAST OF TUSTIN AVENUE)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-184 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1975 EDITION: To consider adoption
of the 1975 Edition of the National Electrical Code, with amendments thereto, to
be known as the Anaheim Electrical Code, amending Title 15 by adding thereto new
Sections 15.16.001 through 15.16.140, and adoption of a new fee schedule.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, explained that the adoption of the ordinance
would bring Anaheim in line with other cities in Orange County. Most of the
exceptions that were made to the National Electrical Code were made on the basis
that the Code was national and not applicable to Orange County. He also confirmed
for Councilwoman Kaywood that the fees did cover costs and were in line with other
fees of similar jurisdictions.
Councilman Kott indicated that he did not want to be brought in line with National
Codes but only wanted a Code for Anaheim especially since on a previous matter the
Council supported opposition to the State infringing on the City and dictating how
to perform relative to a business license. He, therefore, discouraged any positive
vote on the issue at hand.
77-310 .~
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
There being no persons in the audience who wished to speak, the Mayor closed
the public hearing.
ORDINANCE NO. 3661: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3661 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3661: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
i5.16.001 THROUGH 15.16.200 OF TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1975 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, WITH AMEND-
MENTS THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.16 BY ADDING THERETO NEW
SECTIONS 15.16.001 THROUGH 15.16.140.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3661 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 77R-185 and 77R-186 for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-185: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SETTING FORTH LOCAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE,
1975 EDITION.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-186: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 71R-502 AND ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE, 1975 EDITION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-185 and 77R-186 duly passed and adopted.
105: ANGELINA HOTEL: Mr. Richard Vargas, 411 South Clementine Street, Co-Chairman
of the Community Services Board, explained that on March 2, 1977, the Board sent
a recommendation to the City Council to advise the City Attorney's Office to keep
the Board informed of the legal matters concerning the Angelina Hotel relative to
a series of violations, citizen complaints, and the failure of the owner, Mr.
Richardson, to comply with certain Building Codes resulting in his arrest. Mr. Vargas
indicated that the problem of what to do with the residents of the hotel still re-
mained, an eviction notice was posted giving 7 days in which the building must be
evacuated. The Community Services Board was charged with the responsibility of relo-
cation; however, the problem revolved around the fact that the residents of the hotel
had already paid their rent for the month and they were being asked to evacuate with-
out compensation for rent payment. Also, according to Executive Director Norm Priest,
the vacancy rate in the City was .02% and further compounding the problem was the
77-311
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
aftermath of the Valencia Hotel fire leaving no place for its residents to go. He
was now turning to the City and further commented that there was difficulty in gain-
ing access to the Council when urgent problems arose, thereby causing this particular
problem to reach a crisis stage.
The Mayor briefed Mr. Vargas on the long, on-going problems surrounding the Angelina
Hotel relative to the existing and grossly flagrant violations in the building
endangering human lives. He also explained that efforts were being made by staff
to relocate the residents and assured Mr. Vargas that both the Council and staff
were aware of the problems involved in efforts to accomplish this relocation. In
the course of trying to force the owner to bring the building up to Code, people
may be turned out onto the street, but the Mayor expressed the opinion that such
action was preferable over the prospect of seeing human lives taken as a result of
a catastrophe. The City could not stand by and allow people to live in a potential
"death trap."
Mr. Vargas reiterated his concern over the displacement of approximately 40 families
and an avenue of quick access to the Council.
Relative to the latter, the Mayor stated if there was an urgent need to communicate
with the Council it was just a matter of calling any Council Member and the subject
could be brought up at the end of any Council meeting, and he urged Mr. Vargas to
use that method should the occasion arise.
In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Vargas stated he had been in contact with Bill Vasquez
and Joe Garza of Community Services relative to the agencies they were working
through to accomplish relocation. He explained that the Welfare Department was
contacted but they were unconcerned because none of the residents were on their
Welfare rolls.
The Mayor indicated that one of the problems of which they were both aware was that.
a majority of the residents were illegal aliens which prevented governmental agencies,
such as the County, from offering any assistance.
Mr. Vargas stated that it was not known if illegal aliens were involved because
no type of investigation had been initiated and the Immigration Department never
made any checks.
The Mayor stated that the Immigration Department was requested to do so by the
City Attorney's Office from time to time, but they refused to investigate.
Mr. Vargas requested that since other similar situations might arise that the City
Attorney inform the Community Services Board so that appropriate action could be
taken.
The Mayor asked that if Mr. Vargas or members of the Board had any resources to turn
to relative to the matter that Mr. Vasquez also be informed.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds by
Double Check Retreat, Inc., for telephone solicitation of reusable household dis-
cards during March and April, 1977, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
77-312
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
103: ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 18 ANNEXATION - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Request
submitted by Philip Bettencourt, Anaheim Hills Inc., requesting reconsideration
of Anaheim Hills No. 18 Annexation, consisting of approximately 142.4 uninhabited
acres located south of Nohl Ranch Road east of Prairie Place (extended) and west
of Anaheim Hills Road. The subject annexation was denied by the Council on
February 15, 1977 and reconsideration requested for this date.
Mr. Bettencourt referred to a letter dated February 18, 1977 which was an Affidavit
of Merit for rehearing previously submitted relative to Anaheim Hills Annexation
No. 18. He then displayed General Plan Amendment Alternate "2-B", 14,400-acre
study area, which area was included in the General Plan designations established
last Tuesday evening. Working from the document, he pointed to the boundaries
of the City's established Sphere of Influence, as well as the boundary lines of
the proposed annexation.
Mr. Bettencourt then broached the concern that was expressed relative to the Cost
Benefit Study and proceeded to put the size of the property involved in perspective
indicating that it represented less than 1% of the total Canyon sphere area and,
therefore, 1% of the alleged debt by way of analogy. More important, he stated
that the area was already served by existing City utilities and all of the improve-
ment costs would be borne by the developer. He further indicated that, based on
environmental impact studies for only one half of the property, develop-
ment would result in approximately $40 million in new construction for the 220 homes
that could be accommodated under RS-HS-10,000 zoning and those homes would generate
$1 million per year in property taxes to the public agencies of Orange County. The
annexation itself would not impart any entitlements to use the land, it only assured
the land would be in the City's jurisdiction, but would still require approval of
a planned community ordinance or establishment of precise zoning on the property as
the land was put to any use, as well as approval of any tract or parcel maps.
The Mayor reiterated the concerns he expressed at the time of denial of the annex-
ation relative to the Cost Benefit Model Study and the fact that the people in the
Hill and Canyon area were concerned with the level of service the City was deliver-
ing to their area. The thrust of his previous motion was to get the Council to
address itself to those problems. He conceded that it would be logical to annex
the property to the City but was concerned over the way annexations were summarily
made irrespective of cost and developmental problems that might be created. He was
agreeable to annexations in industrial areas because they were a monetary gain,
whereas residential developments were a cost to the City. It was a matter of what
speed the City would bear the resultant cost.
Councilman Seymour indicated the Council did not have the opportunity to do any
in depth study relative to the economics of developing or causing to be developed
the acres proposed to be annexed. He indicated that he and Councilwoman Kaywood
were perhaps more familiar with the Cost Benefit Model as a result of their efforts
in working with the Task Force, wherein considerable time was spent discussing the
Model. The Task Force felt that the Model was a good theory which could be developed
into a practical tool, but by no means a valid one until tested in a practical way
in the market place. Councilman Seymour stated, however, that further refinement
of the Model Study should be encouraged to see where the City stood today and how
much further it could go before the brakes should be applied. It was his opinion
that the City was in a good position concerning the property tax rate in Anaheim
77-313
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
with all other cities in the County. At last calculation, Anaheim had the 15th
or 16th lowest rate (see page 77-314) indicating that the cost of extending services
was not out of the question. He also stated that the Cost/Benefit Study should
not consider Santa Ana Canyon as a separate piece of real estate to the rest of
the community, but other factors had to be taken into consideration, such as the
large northeast industrial area which would bring many tax revenues to the City,
as well as the City's large commercial/recreational area. While the City had a
responsibility to the people in the Santa Ana Canyon--Anaheim Hills area, as well
as to those in the western part of the community, to insure a high delivery in
level of service at a reasonable property tax rate, to the degree it could meet its
responsibilities, then the City also had a social responsibility and could not afford
the luxury of saying no one else could move in. He was not convinced that the level
of service now being provided and that which could be provided could not be continued
at a very low property tax rate to all citizens of Anaheim.
Councilman Roth explained that he seconded the motion for denial based solely on
the fact that there was a lack of documentation and input regarding the cost of
services to be provided in the Canyon and not from the concept of no-growth.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the original General Plan approved for Anaheim
Hills covered all 4,200 acres based on a planned community. It was one area of the
City that could be looked at with pride and could not be compared with existing
areas relative to cost. She was of the opinion there had been a real growing ex-
perience with Anaheim Hills and they had corrected many of the mistakes made at the
beginning. She also explained for Councilman Roth that the $57 million deficit
over the next 25 years, as outlined in the Task Force report, considered 14,400
acres, whereas the Anaheim Hills portion covered approximately 4,200 acres originally
considered. Utilities were already in, the backbone being provided by the developer
and not the City.
Councilman Roth contended that the reason the City had to proceed carefully was
in light of Anaheim's total budget of $107 million; the total from property taxes
representing only $8,500,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that very expensive homes were going to be built
and they would be paying more for services already in the area. To refuse them
would not make a lot of sense, because the City would be losing, and not gaining.
Shirley Modiano, President, League of Women Voters, Anaheim/Garden Grove, explained
that in 1971 their membership studied the Hill and Canyon area and reached a con-
sensus on the following guidelines for the area: (1) adherence to the Anaheim
General Plan with low density development, (2) support the Greenbelt Plan and the
Scenic Cooridor, (3) no strip commercial development should be allowed, and (4) the
concept of diminishing returns should be carefully studied using a Cost/Benefit
Analysis before acquisition of the outer reaches of the Canyon. She stated that
if money was spent in the Hill and Canyon area for services, it could not be spent
for the needs of other areas in the City. She assumed that residents in Anaheim
Hills were lacking adequate police protection and other services and suggested
that easterly growth and development be slowed in order to catch up with the exist-
ing needs in that area alone. She added that the question of diminishing returns
for all of Anaheim must be carefully considered, and stressed the need to attract
more commercial and industrial development to sustain increased growth in the Canyon.
77-314
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that of the four recommendations made by the
League in 1971, three had been achieved relative to low density, the greenbelt
and strip commercial. He agreed that unless there was an equal amount in tax
revenue from development of industrial and commercial properties in the Canyon to
go along with the residential growth pattern, the City would begin to suffer.
He clarified that his remarks intended to show that he had a high degree of con-
fidence if the Council moved aggressively into the development of the northeast
industrial area and the commercial areas around it, there would be no great con-
cern relative to the accompanying residential development. He further stated
that the northeast industrial area was ranked by the industrial community second
only to Irvine and since Irvine's supply of industrial ground was about to peak
out, the northeast industrial area would be next in line if the City would see
to it that very rapid, high quality, clean industrial growth took place in the
Canyon. Without such growth, he would agree that the City could be making a
serious mistake.
Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed, President of the Westridge Homeowners Association, ex-
plained that although the Cost/Benefit Study did not include the area now being
considered for annexation, the same Cost/Benefit figure should be applied. While
the Council generally tightened spending by the City, they had cut taxes and added *
expensive programs. They had no argument with Anaheim Hills, but the people already
living in the area were experiencing a lesser quality of City services than other
parts of the City. She stated that Anaheim had a population increase of 29,000
in six years up to 1976 in the Canyon, yet, the Police Department did not add one
additional sworn officer in the last three years while Santa Ana added 83. Mrs.
Hall then proceeded to make comparisons in different areas of service showing the
level enjoyed by certain areas of the City, whereas such services were lacking or
non-existent in Anaheim Hills. Speaking for the Westridge Homeowners Association,
it was their opinion that any annexation could only serve to dilute the already
inadequate City services in their area; speaking as a private citizen and member
of the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee, few new needs existed, most were
identified 8 to 10 years prior, and they had come to the painful realization there
were no funds for these needs. She emphasized that it was time to improve what
existed, rather than extending growth, and maintained that quality should take
precedence over quantity.
Councilman Seymour questioned Mrs. Hall relative to her service as a member of
the Santa Ana Canyon Task Force wherein she approved General Plan Amendment
Alternate "2-B" along with everyone else in recommending that the Plan become the
general plan for the development of the Canyon. Relating her positive vote to
her present remarks, he considered her position to be 180 degrees opposite. Relative
to alternatives~ he asked if she would, as an individual, favor an increase in
property taxes in exchange for a higher level of service.
Mrs. Hall indicated that she would absolutely prefer paying an increase in property
taxes if the level of services were the same as prior to the tax cut. The savings
of $6.82 is nothing to the homeowner in her area. Relative to Alternative "2-B",
she was of the opinion that the plan was a compromise between what was proposed
and zero growth.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that, in fact, Anaheim's $1.05 tax rate was the
9th lowest in the County and currently could be second or third at the present 95¢
rate.
* See Minutes of April 17, 1977, Page 77-
** See Minutes of April 17, 1977, Page 77-
77-315
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15.~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor indicated that he would not oppose Annexation No. 18 and would vote
favorably on it. However, he stressed that the Council should adopt some type
of procedure on annexations just as they were forced to do on General Plan Amend-
ments, by approving one or two a year and no more at 100 to 125 acres each. For
the next calendar year, he would not vote for any new annexations in the subject
area.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that it was important to retain flexibility
and deal with each item on its merits, rather than making a blanket statement.
The Mayor reiterated it was time for the Council to look seriously at annexations
and adopt policies indicating the City was only going to take on new areas commen-
surate with the ability to serve them just as the rest of the City and hold up any
other annexations until it was assured that the City was on the road to.resolving
the catch-up problem.
Councilman Seymour empathized with the Mayor, but instead of adopting a defensive
posture, preferred moving aggressively with regard to industrial development, which
development would enable the City to meet the cost of more services. He then
referred to his request some months back relative to the concept of maintaining
the aggressive posture of encouraging industrial/commercial development in the City.
He was concerned that no action had been forthcoming either from the City Manager's
Office or any other department with the exception of filing for a $100,000 grant.
If the City could accomplish this goal, they would not be confronted with the
erroneous decision of refusing anyone into the City.
For the record, the Mayor stated that Mr. Ron Trunk, Nohl Ranch Homeowners Associa-
tion (560 members) telephoned him urging the Council, on behalf of the membership
of the Association, to take a stand against additional annexations because of the
cost of future development.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-187 for adoption, approving Anaheim
Hills No. 18 Annexation and rescinding Resolution No. 77R-100. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-187: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIG-
NATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 18 ANNEXATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-187 duly passed and adopted.
157: "HANDICAPPED AWARENESS DAY": Mr. John Dillon, 5341 Del Sur, La Palma, Barrier
Free Anaheim Committee, referred to his communication dated February 20, 1977, wherein
he explained the concept of a "Handicapped Awareness Day" as being an important part
of their work on the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee. He wanted affirmation
that Council concurred with the idea and that a day could be planned along the lines
outlined in his letter.
77-316
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor agreed with the general thrust and asked Mr. Dillon if he wanted any
other form of participation other than a resolution.
Mr. Dillon indicated that they would like participation in the wheelchair activity
which would be in the form of an exhibition to be held somewhere in the Civic Center
Area to give people a better idea of the problems of the handicapped.
Councilman Kott was of the opinion that it would be degrading to all and felt it
was not necessary to personally experience what a handicapped person could or could
not do from a technical standpoint. Also, noting that he (Dillon) lived in
La Palma, Councilman Kott asked how he became Chairman of Barrier Free Anaheim.
Mr. Dillon explained that last June he became Architectural Barrier Chairman of
the California Association of the Physically Handicapped in Orange County which
was a Statewide organization and since that time had become involved in other
cities.
Mr. Hap Bayley, 801 North Loara #224, member of Barrier Free Anaheim, explained
that they would try to get media coverage for the Awareness Day. He emphasized
that they intended no embarrassment either to members of the Council or City staff,
but instead asked that they be full partners with them on that day to bring to
the private sector, contractors, architects, builders, private merchants of Orange
County an awareness of the accessibility needs of the disabled.
The Mayor suggested that the details of the day be worked out with Ken Clements,
Public Information Officer.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the concept of a
"Handicapped Awareness Day" was approved, with details to be worked out with the
Public Information Officer and brought back to Council for finalization. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mrs. Patricia Bayley, 801 North Loara #224, expressed to Councilman Kott that it
was not a degradation for a person to simulate the problems experienced by the
handicapped. She further explained that the idea of an awareness day was one that
had been around for several years, used by groups such as Barrier Free Anaheim to
call attention to public officials and members of the various professions the
needs of the disabled.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
118: 1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to
the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Robert J. Laporte for personal property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of city-owned vehicle backing into his parked vehicle on or
about January 26, 1977.
77-317
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Terry Gilbert for personal property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of utility equipment failure causing oily acid spray upon
his vehicle on or about January 9, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Earl W. Jobe for personal property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of street disrepair at 134 South Magnolia on or about
February 14, 1977.
108: 2. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permit was approved as recommended
by the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit for a dance to be held April 1, 1977, 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M.,
at the Anaheim Convention Center for the Santa Aha Police Association and Tustin
Police Association Benefit Show and Dance. (Jack Dean George, dba J & J Productions,
Applicant)
3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 114: City of La Habra letter to Arnold C. Sternberg, Director, Department of
Housing and Community Development, re proposed changes in the regulations con-
cerning the Housing Element Guidelines, Draft II.
b. 175: Federal Power Commission regarding Southern California Edison Company
Docket No. ER76-205, Rulings and Order on Further Discovery and Protective Order
Motions.
c. 175: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Notice of Filing
of Application for Rate Increase, Application No. 57111 of Southern California
Edison Company for an offset rate adjustment to cover expenses associated with
supplemental conservation programs and to establish a Conservation Adjustment
Account in which to accumulate differences.
d. 109: Controller of the State of California, statements of Estimated Shared
Revenue to be Apportioned by the State Controller during the 1977-78 FY from
Highway Users Taxes, Motor Vehicle License Fees, Highway Carriers' Uniform
Business License Tax and Off-Highway Motor Vehicle License Fees.
e. 175: Monthly report for December, 1976 - Electrical Division.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-188 THROUGH 77R-190: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
Nos. 77R-188 through 77R-190, 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-188: A RESOLUTION OF TEH CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Canyon Village; Raymond G.
Spehar, et al.; C. Darle Hale, et al; Canyon Village; Kenneth Dale Clausen, et al.;
Thomas R. Vandiver, et ux.)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION T.O THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIG-
NATED LA PALMA-LAKEVIEW NO. 3 ANNEXATION.
77-318
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: KATELLA TENNIS COURT RESUR-
FACING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 895; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE
INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened April 7,
1977, 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-188 through 77R-190, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3663: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3663 for adoption. Refer
to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3663: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-18, ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3663 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3664: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3664 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3664: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-26, PR)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3664 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3667 THROUGH 3669: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3667
through 3669, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3667: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-5, RM-4000)
77-319
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3668: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY' OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
17.08.570.030 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (correcting
typographical error)
ORDINANCE NO. 3669: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-37, RS-HS-22,000)
148: SCAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the SCAG
General Assembly meeting of March 11, 1977, at which she was elected to be
an alternate on the Executive Committee of SCAG, representing the cities
of Orange County, for the next two years. Therefore, Anaheim would continue
to sit on the Executive Committee.
She also stated that Anaheim's one-year term as an at-large City came to an end.
148: ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES - SUPPORT OF RESOLUTIONS: On motion by Counci-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, support of a resolution by Fountain
Valley establishing policies and programs for water conservation and support of
a resolution by Tustin automatically providing for annexation of unincorporated
County islands in the cities surrounding them in accordance with the correct Sphere
of Influence was authorized, said action to be taken at the Orange County League
of Cities meeting March 17, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
148: ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES - ASSESSMENT FOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, a 3¢ assessment per capita for
each city for a full-time Executive Secretary for the Orange County League of Cities
was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (5:12 p.m.)
136: GARDEN PARK HOSPITAL: Councilman Kott introduced Dr. Clark Smith, 9312
Hillview Road, who spoke to the consolidation of Garden Park Hospital into West
Anaheim Community Hospital. He explained that in November, 1976, the issue was
heard before the Orange County Health Planning Council and voted down 7 to 4 not
to allow the merger of Garden Park's 100 beds with approximately 240 beds at West
Anaheim Community. At that meeting, there was a large turn-out of employees,
residents of the community and physicians and it was apparent the community's best
interest would be served by Garden Park Hospital remaining at its present location.
The ownership of the Hospital, American Medi-Corp, appealed the action through the
State Health Planning Commission, which appeal was to be held the next day. Dr.
Smith then gave an overview of the area presently being served by Garden Park
Hospital and contended that in the final analysis, the residents of the community
would ultimately be responsible for the approximate $7 million it would cost to
merge the two facilities, as well as having their hospital care moved a couple of
miles away, whereas the cost of operating Garden Park Hospital could be done for
only one seventh of that cost. He, therefore, requested a resolution from the
Council communicating to the State Health Planning Commission that the residents
would like to see the Hospital stay at its present location and urging a "no" vote
on the merger plan. He was concerned over the fact that Sacramento was going to
make a decision that would have an impact on the local community.
The Mayor explained that the Council twice extended a reclassification to expand
West Anaheim Community Hospital to accommodate the consolidation of Garden Park
Hospital into it at the request of American Medi-Corp. Since he had gone on record
approving the action, he indicated he would find it difficult to reverse his position
disapproving it at this time.
77-320
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it would be irresponsible for her to vote since she
did not have all the facts of the matter.
MOTION: Further discussion followed between Dr. Smith and the Council relative
to the ramifications of the merger of the two hospitals at the conclusion of
which, Councilman Kott offered a motion that the City Council go on record
supporting the concept that Garden Park Hospital was a much needed facility in
the community in which it was presently located and opposing the merger with
West Anaheim Community Hospital in light of the new evidence presented. The
motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
120 AND 170: DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM~ HELTZER CONSTRUCTION SITE~ TRACK NO. 8866:
Mr. Ed Reikes, 1232 Wilhelmina, reiterated the problems he previously brought to
the Council's attention in conjunction with the Heltzer Construction Project (see
Council Minutes of March 1, 1977) and his unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter
either with Mr. Heltzer himself or a Mr. Swanson, the man in charge of the project
on-site. He indicated he found out through the Parks and Recreation Department
that Heltzer Construction had been cited a number of times for destruction of City
Park property although at this time he could not present the facts in black and white.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that he had also called Mr. Heltzer who allegedly
tried to reach Mr. Reikes without success. He (Hopkins) did report the matter
to the State Safety Department who indicated they would investigate the safety
conditions as far as excavation from both the workers and public standpoint, but
the report had not yet been received. He had also spoken with Miss Santalahti
regarding the signalization and sidewalk issues involved.
Miss Santalahti explained that in connection with zoning the developer was required
to construct a signal to be finalized at the time the last unit was released for
occupancy. However, necessary parts for the signal were not presently available.
Relative to the sidewalks, her research of Council minutes found no mention of
sidewalks, but instead referenced street improvements and problems that arose rela-
tive to bicycle lanes.
Councilman Kott indicated to Mr. Reikes that everything that could be done legally
at the present time was being done.
Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Reikes stressed there had to be someone in
the City who could make the developer conform. After talking with Mr. Swanson, he
got the impression that there were more injuries occurring than he was aware of.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that if he could get a report from the State Industrial
Safety Department stating that the site was a hazard as far as workers were concerned,
the City might be able to compel the developer to conform. A cease work order could
not be issued by the Mayor unless a violation existed. In that case, an injunction
could be obtained, but he would need something specific to take to court. He suggested
that if Mr. Reikes could obtain documentation as to children being injured, an injunc-
tion could be obtained based on such documentation.
77-321
Ci__i~Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
No further action was taken by the Council at this time.
120: RELOCATION OF UTILITY POLE (STEINKE): Councilman Kott explained that rela-
tive to subject utility pole (see Council Minutes of February 15, and March 8, 1977),
Mr. Steinke was told he was going to be turned over to OSHA if he did not pay to
have it removed. According to Council action on February 15, 1977, the matter was
to be handled at no cost to Mr. Steinke.
Mr. Don Steinke, 773 East Peralta Hills Drive, explained that nothing had happened
other than two weeks prior Electrical Superintendent George Edwards contacted his
(Steinke's) electrical contractor and stated that if he were to erect the two light
standards closest to the utility pole, he would be reported to OSHA. He, therefore,
did not put up the light standard. In a subsequent phone call, Mr. Edwards stated
that the City was not responsible for, nor intended to pay to have the pole removed.
Mr. Talley stated that he would update the Council relative to the situation at the
next meeting and a report would be submitted. He indicated that the electrical
contractor was well aware if he put up the light installation as he chose to do, he
would be violating State law and there was no recourse to the City but to turn the
matter over to the State since he would be getting into an extremely dangerous
situation. Although the Council clearly directed the staff to remove the pole at
no cost, the report to Council would point out that nearly $30,000 had been expended
and charged to the benefactors for the type of service being requested and another
$20,000 worth of these billings was coming up. What the Council's direction would
do is, take the cost and pass it onto the rate payer. Therefore, past policy of
charging back to the benefactor should be reaffirmed in view of the ongoing Canyon
development and the many such requests being received.
Councilman Kott stated that in this case the City did not have easement to go across
Mr. Steinke's property with a utility pole.
Mr. Talley explained that the line had been out there since 1948 and the Attorney's
Office was of the opinion that an easement by prescriptive right was involved.
Twenty-one such lines had already been accomplished under the same circumstances
and most were under prescriptive easement. This case was being singled out and
Mr. Talley wanted to emphasize the magnitude in the change of policy the Council
was considering.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there was no way it could be done without setting
a precedent. Councilman Roth indicated he lacked sufficient information to make an
intelligent decision on the matter and requested staff to provide all the necessary
information to do so for the next meeting.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, staff was
instructed to submit a comprehensive report on the utility pole at 773 East Peralta
Hills Drive by the next Council meeting. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
155: SANTA ANA RIVER/SANTIAGO CREEK GREENBELT COMMISSION~ CLOSING COSTS: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, $5,883, representing Anaheim's
assessment as a result of the phasing out of the Greenbelt Commission was approved to be
paid from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
77-322
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Thom moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (6:05 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Kott seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:05 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK