1975/02/1875-146
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linde D. Roberts
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ZONING 8UFERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour called the meeting to order.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meetings held January 21,
and January 28, 1975, were approved on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Seymour. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley 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 Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount of $3,593,425.90, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
REPORT - RESULTS OF THE MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM~
ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY: Mr. Jim LeSieur of Arthur Young & Company presented
copies of the report on the Telephone Communications System to Council and
staff members and introduced Mr. Peter Oeth to report on same.
Mr. Oeth reviewed the objectives of the Communications Study and outlined
the scope of the examination conducted, which primarily dealt with those tele-
phones connected to the Centrex Telephone switching equipment. He noted that
no attempt was made to review specialized communications systems such as those
utilized by Police, Fire and Disaster Services personnel.
Mr. Oeth reported that one of the major findings of the review was that
the Property Maintenance Division is controlling costs and expenses of the
City's telephone system very closely and should be commended in this activity.
Mr. Oeth advised that patterns of calling were reviewed during the month
of November, 1974, which indicated that there is a heavy volume of calls into
area code 213, the central Los Angeles area, and the second highest call area
is area code 714 with some concentration into Huntington Beach and Newport
Beach, which are presently toll call areas from Anaheim.
The following are the recommendations made by the Arthur Young & Company
for lowering the costs and improving the efficiency of the City telephone
system:
1. Installation of four dial-access foreign exchange lines to Los Angeles,
an estimated savings of $5,498.88 per year.
2. Installation of two dial-access foreign exchange lines terminating in
Pacific Telephone Company's central office in Santa Aha, to be used for calls
to Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, an estimated savings of $952.20 per
year.
3. Release of the two Madison foreign exchange lines presently terminating
in the Convention Center ticket office during low usage periods, an estimated
savings of $3,077.50 per year.
4. Restricting the use of foreign exchange lines: In connection with the
foreign exchange lines recommended, Mr. Oeth advised that there is a device called
a Phonemaster available from Pacific Telephone at a cost of $93 per month which
can restrict any number of lines, exchanges or area codes available by dialing
into the exchange line. It is not, however, suggested by Arthur Young & Company
75-147
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
that this device be installed immediately, but rather after a three- to four-
month period, if the City feels abuses of this system are occurring.
5. Equipment recommendations~ Modification or change of configuration in
key systems: Mr. Oeth reported that the survey resulted in recommendations for
equipment substitution and reduction representing a yearly savings of $5,941.40
with a one time cost to implement of $732. The changes in key systems affect
the following departments: Data Processing, Police Department, Finance Depart-
ment, Utilities, City Engineer, Accounting, City Attorney, Construction Engineer,
Licenses, Recreation Division, Visitors and Convention Bureau and Convention
Center.
6. Removal of outlying telephones from Centrex System: Mr. Oeth stated
that the telephones installed in outlying areas of the City, in City parks and
other facilities, if removed from the Centrex System would save the City an
appreciable amount of money ($2,594 per year). He noted that for all phones
connected to the Centrex System, there is a 70¢ per one-quarter mile charge for
each line. Calls made to other City Departments from these outlying phones are
low and it is, therefore, recommended these be established as outside business
lines.
In summmtion, Mr. Oeth advised that implementation of the recommendations
made by Arthur Young & Company would effect an annual savings in City telephone
costs of $18,064, based on the November, 1974 telephone bill. He noted that
implementation of these recommendations can be accomplished by making the
request to the Pacific Telephone Company representatives, and many can be
complete within 30 days.
Mr. Oeth reported that Arthur Young & Company will undertake a more detailed
survey of the telephone systems at both the Stadium and Convention Center in
the near future and submit further recommendations regarding these facilities.
He indicated that it would most likely be more efficient for these facilities
to have their own central switching equipment. Included as a savings in the
study was removal of Convention Center telephones from Centrex, without any
change in instrumentation, including only mileage costs as a savings.
Mr. Oeth stated that there are two items outstanding from Pacific Telephone
as of this date:
1. A report on inventory discrepancies of equipment which he feels will
probably be $200 to $300 in the City favor.
2. Report on the scan of the Centrex System performed the week of
January 6, 1975, with specialized equipment to measure the usage by various
segments of the System. This report, when complete and submitted, will be
affixed to the Arthur Young & Company work papers, and it is not anticipated to
change any of the recommendations presented.
In reply to Mr. Watts, Mr. Oeth explained how the recommended changes in
key systems for the City Attorney's Office would affect their telephone system.
Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council accept the Arthur Young &
Company report on results of the Management Review of the Telephone Communica-
tions System and authorize immediate implementation of the recommendations sub-
mitted, with report back from the City Manager in 30 days as to accomplishment,
excluding the recommendation regarding the Convention Center. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-86 - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM POLICE MANPOWER ALLOCATION
SYSTEM: On report of the Assistant City Manager, Councilman Sneegas offered
Resolution No. 75R-86 for adoption, authorizing participation in a joint powers
agreement for Police Manpower Allocation Systems.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE
CITIES OF ANAHEIM, BREA, GARDEN GROVE, HUNTINGTON BEACH AND LA HABRA FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICE MANPOWER ALLOCATION SYSTEMS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(cost first year - $710.00; second year - $1,750.00; third year - $600.00)
75-148
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FebruarM i.8.~. 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, ?ebley, Snee§as and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-86 duly passed and adopted.
TRANSFER FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND - COST FOR AUTOMATION OF LICENSE DIVISION:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council authorized the transfer of $1,596 from the Council Contingency Fund to
the Business License Division of the Finance Department to cover implementation
costs for an automated licensing system (recommended by Arthur Young & Company).
MOTION CARRIED.
SOLICITATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES ON UHF FREQUENCY - BEREAN BIBLE MINISTRY:
The City Manager reported that the Berean Bible Ministry has been in contact
with the City regarding their intention to conduct charitable solicitations
within Orange County over UHF television frequency, Channel 46, which is located
within Anaheim. Chapter 7.32.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, on review by
the City Attorney, makes no distinction between this type of solicitation and
the more traditional door-to-door solicitation. Mr. Watts reported that he has
suggested this group file an application for solicitation permit in the normal
manner, however, he would look into the City's Code section further and report
on possible amendment to same.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-87 - ESTABLISHING NEW JOB CLASSES - JUNIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR
AND DISASTER SERVICES AIDE: Mr. Robert Davis presented the recommendation sub-
mitted by the Personnel Director that two new job classes be established to
employ grant funded employees under C.E.T.A. Title II funds. He advised that
these recommended positions have been approved by the respective Department
Heads.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
74R-520 ESTABLISHING NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATES OF PAY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Snee§as and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-87 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-88 - AGREEMENT TO EMPLOY CHARLES $CHULTE (PRODUCTION
COORDINATOR): Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-88 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHARLES SCHULTE,
AN INDIVIDUAL. (Production Coordinator)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-88 duly passed and adopted.
APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS - CONSTRUCTION OF SANTA ANA RIVER LAND-
SCAPING~ CHAPMAN AVENUE TO THE ORANGE FREEWAY: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, plans and special provisions for the construction
of Santa Ana River landscaping from Chapman Avenue to the Orange Freeway were
approved as submitted and recommended by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
75-149
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18; 197.5,. 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-89 - AGREEMENT WITH LA BELLE'CONSULTANTS: On report from the
City Engineer that this firm performs pavement analysis for resurfacing and
slurry sealing with specialized equipment which tests material while in place
and determines the best method of repair, far surpassing only visual inspections
conducted by the City, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-89 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT EMPLOYING LA BELLE CONSULTANTS TO PERFORM A STRUC-
TURAL AND PHYSICAL CONDITION EVALUATION OF VARIOUS CITY STREETS. ($5,300.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tam declared Resolution No. 75R-89 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-90 - UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7UT-4964~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-90 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF AN UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-4964 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (Reloca-
tion of sewer lines at Brookhurst and La Palma in connection with Santa Ana
Freeway widening, no cost to the City)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, ?ebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-90 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-91 - AGREEMENT WITH MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS, INC.
FOR COMPREHENSIVE ENGINEERING STUDY OF THE CITY'S RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM:
Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-91 for adoption, with amendment
as discussed at the meeting held February 4, 1975, to include Public Works and
Utilities frequencies for a total of $5,700.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND MOTOROLA COMMUNICA-
TIONS AND ELECTRONICS, INC. RELATING TO A COMPREHENSIVE ENGINEERING STUDY TO
EXTEND THE COVERAGE OF THE CITY'S RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-91 duly passed and adopted.
PARCEL MAPS/SEGREGRATION APPLICATIONS: The City Attorney referred to comments
made during previous Council meetings regarding resolutions adopted by the
Cities of Costa Mesa and Fullerton requesting that the Orange County Board of
Supervisors set up informational procedures pertaining to notification of
segregration applications.
The City Attorney suggested, in lieu of adopting a similar resolution, that
since the Subdivision Map Act requires, as a matter of law, that a parcel map be
submitted to the City for appropriate design check; and that the city or local
75-150
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
agency must approve same before they are submitted to the County Recorder for
recordation, that the most efficient and direct way to call this to the County
Recorder's attention would be by approaching the County Counsel to determine 1)
whether his office agrees with that interpretation of the law,and 2) to request
that the County Counsel advise the County Recorder to comply with the law.
By general consent, the City Council authorized the City Attorney and City
Engineer to attempt to resolve the matter of setting up informational procedures
pertaining to notification o£ segregration applications by letter to appropriate
County staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS' On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, the following actions were authorized in accordance with reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Amusement Devices Permit for one cocktail table
video tennis (ping pong) game to be located at the Loose Caboose, 801 East
Katella Avenue was granted, subject to recommendations of the Chief of Police.
(Paul G. Schoch, Schoch Systems, Inc., Applicant)
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2396 - Opposing the Proposed
Powers, Funding and Government Element of the South Coast Regional Coastline
Commission.
b. Financial and Operating Report for the month of January, 1975 for the
Building Division.
3. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to
the insurance carrier:
a. Claim submitted by Linda Rex for injuries purportedly sustained as a
result of actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about November 1, 1974.
b. Claim submitted by Eric Michael Gutmann for injuries sustained purpor-
tedly as a result of actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about November 1,
1974.
c. Claim submitted by David B. Stewart for injuries and damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about
November 2, 1974.
d. Claim submitted by American Lock & Supply Inc. for damage to premises
and merchandise sustained purportedly as a result of City sewer pipes being
clogged, causing flooding on or about December 4, 1974.
e. Claim submitted by David B. Michel for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of actions of City of Anaheim employees from November 6, 1974.
f. Claim submitted by Dean Richard Miller for damages and injuries purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of maintenance of City of Anaheim streets, on or
about December 4, 1974.
g. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Davis for damage sustained to
property purportedly as a result of a power surge, on or about December 9,
1974.
h. Claim submitted by Mary Green for injuries sustained purportedly as a
result of actions of Anaheim Police Department, on or about December 26, 1974.
i. Claim submitted by Albert George Soard for damages sustained purpor-
tedly as a result of malfunctioning traffic signals, on or about December 25,
1974.
j. Claim submitted by Ronald Lee Soard for injuries, damages and loss,
purportedly sustained as a result of malfunctioning traffic signals, on or
about December 25, 1974.
k. Claim submitted by Teachers Insurance Company for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of condition of traffic signals, on or about December 31,
1974.
1. Claim submitted by Georgeanna Wright for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of collision with City vehicle, on or about January 6, 1975.
MOTION CARRIED.
75-i5'1
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-92 AND 75R-93: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos.
75R-92 and 75R-93 both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the recom-
mended actions listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-92 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Ray L. Hommes, et ux.; Continental Casualty Co.; Larry P. Benvin, et ux.;
Raymond T. Sharp, et ux.; Lyle John Zeran, et ux.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-93 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE~ WORK ORDER NO. 722-B: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND
THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORM-
ANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING
AT THE INTERSECTION OF CERRITOS AVENUE AND WALNUT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 722-B. (Smith Electric Supply)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 75R-92 and 75R-93 duly passed
and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-94 - WORK ORDER NO. 743-A - MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood requested this matter be removed from
the Consent Calendar Agenda for purposes of discussion and inquired as to
whether or not this proposed contract would modify the time allowed for pedes-
trians to cross the intersection. She further requested that some investigation
be undertaken regarding the adequacy of the time sequence for pedestrian walk
cycle on intersection lights.
Mr. Maddox replied that Work Order No. 743-A will have no effect on the
time cycle for pedestrian crossing and that the City Engineer's Office is
conducting an investigation into the adequacy of the pedestrian cycle, the
results of which will be made known to Council on completion.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-94 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION
OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 743-A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEKEOF. (Bids to be Opened - March 13, 1975, 2:00 F.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-94 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 2:30 P.M. Councilman Sneegas
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom.
(2:30 P.M.)
75-152
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February ..18~ 19.7.5.~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-20: Initiated by the City Planning
Commission for a change in zone from County of Orange A1 to City of Anaheim
RS-A-43,000. Property is located on the north and south sides of Cerritos Avenue,
between Sunkist Street and the Santa Ana River (Cerritos-Wasser Annexation).
Submitted with Reclassification No. 74-75-20 was an application for Exemption
Status from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-18, reported
that the Director of Development Services has determined that the proposed
activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and
is, therefore, categorically exempt and further recommended approval of Reclass-
ification No. 74-75-20, subject to the following condition:
1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to comple-
tion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council either
in favor or in opposition to Reclassification No. 74-75-20; there being no
response, he declared the hearing closed.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the deter-
mination of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity
falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file said environmental
impact report. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-95; Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-95 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the condition recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
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. (74-75-20 -.
RS-A-43,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT; COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-95 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-21: Application initiated by the City
Planning Commission for a change in zone from County of Orange A1 to City of
Anaheim ML was submitted together with application for Exemption Status from the
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. Property is located on
the north and south sides of Cerritos Avenue, between Sunkist Street and the
Santa Ana River (Cerritos-Wasser Annexation).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-19, recom-
mended that subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare
an environmental impact report and further recommended approval of Reclassifica-
tion No. 74-75-21,-subject to the following conditions:
1. That a preliminary title report shall be furnished prior to the adoption
of the ordinance rezoning the property, showing legal vesting of title, legal
description, and containing a map of the property.
2. That dedication shall be made to the City of Anaheim of all streets with-
in the area, according to the Circulation Element of the General Plan Highway
Rights-of-Way and any other area development plans adopted by the City Council.
75-153
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
3. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim such as curbs
and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or 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 the owner(s) of subject property shall install street
lighting on all streets within the area as required by the Director of Public
Utilities; and that a bond 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.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment 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. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be completed.
10. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
the issuance o£ a building permit.
11. That Condition Nos. 4, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
12. That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as each
parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel; provided,
however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing parcels of record
and any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council for a lot split.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council either
in favor or in opposition to Reclassification No. 74-75-21; there being no
response, he declared the hearing closed.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's inquiry regarding whether or not the
park property indicated in this area is included in this zoning application,
Mr. Roberts advised that the General Plan designates special recreational type
uses along the Santa Ana River, consistent with the Greenbelt Plan proposal, and
this particular zoning application would apply the ML Zone to the River, including
the park property involved in the Greenbelt Plan, which would have to be acquired.
He reported that there are no development proposals for the property.
Mr. Watts noted that according to the map a portion of subject property is
still within the Agricultural Preserve and suggested that an additional condition
be imposed on the reclassification, requiring that prior to the reading of an
ordinance rezoning the property to the ML Zone that the property owner request
removal of that portion of the property from the Agricultural Preserve.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, 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 environmental impact report. Councilman Pebley
and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-96: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-96 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission and further subject to the following condition as recommended by the
City Attorney:
13. That the property must be removed from the Agricultural Preserve prior
to the r~ading of an ordinance rez0ning the property to the ML Zone.
75-154
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
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. (74-75-21 - ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-96 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST - PARKING FOR THE ANTLER'S HOTEL: Request of Mr. Allen Berwick, Manager,
Antler's Hotel, to address the City Council regarding parking problems at said
hotel was submitted together with reports from the City Attorney, Traffic
Engineer and Police Department. These reports suggest that the Antler's Hotel
either purchase monthly parking permits, pursuant to Section 14.32.179 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code or consider leasing certain parking spaces to accommodate
their guests.
Mr. Allen Berwick, Antler's Hotel, 109 North Anaheim Boulevard, described
his problem as being primarily the need for parking spaces between the hours of
3:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon. Since removal of on-street parking, his patrons have
been using the City-owned lot behind the hotel. However the two-hour restric-
tion on parking in this lot does not permit his guests to sleep in the morning
since they have to move their cars or receive a citation. This has resulted in
a decline in his business and the loss of some of the permanent residents, and
he, therefore, wishes to apply for relief from Council. He brought to Council's
attention the fact that the other hotels in the downtown area because of their
locations, all have access to a City-owned parking lot.
In discussing the situation with Mr. Berwick, Council suggested other
alternatives, such as the parking permit and use of other City lots located to
the west.
Mr. Davis advised that the particular lot which Mr. Berwick is referring
to has been the source of several complaints recently from businessmen, which
undoubtedly has resulted in more aggressive enforcement policies. He noted
that the City is not providing spaces for the other hotels, but rather the
parking in these lots is less vigorously enforced.
Mr. Watts pointed out that there are two different ordinances involved,
one which precludes parking on City lots between the hours of 3:00 a.m to 6:00
a.m. and the other which places a two-hour restriction on cars parked in the
lots.
Councilman Sneegas voiced the opinion that the City staff should investi-
gate the situation in the other downtown lots and if it is determined that the
Antler's Hotel guests be permitted to use City lots without purchasing permits,
then this same privilege should be afforded to the remaining hotels. He further
stated he would like to know what the parking situation is in some of the City
lots to the west of the lot under discussion which is located immediately
adjacent to Barclays Bank.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, decision
on the request for permission to use City lots for Antler's Hotel guest parking
was continued for one week, to allow time for staff to review the parking situ-
ation and enforcement in other City lots. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE MAPS~ TRACT NOS. 7731~ 7732~ AND 7733~ REVISION
NO. 3: On request of Mr. James E. Cha££in, Classic Development Corporation,
dated January 21, 1975, for a one-year extension of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 7731, 7732, and 7733, was submitted together with reports from the City
Engineer and Development Services Department.
75-155
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The report from Development Services Department recommended that if Council
finds the requested one-year extension appropriate, that this expire on April 24,
1976.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour recognized Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa
Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., 131 La Paz Street~ who noted that this
proposed construction site is within the flood plain, in which area her organiza-
tion has been attempting to discourage construction. She inquired why the one-
year extension is necessary.
Mr. James E. Chaffin, Classic Development Corporation, advised that the
reason they are requesting extensions on these tract maps is that they presently
have 110 acres under development in the canyon, and it would be economically
impossible to develop all this property prior to the~current expiration date.
He advised that these three tracts could be under active construction prior to
the expiration of this extension of time, if such is granted.
Mrs. Dinndorf contended that these tracts, because of their location in the
flood plain, would prove to be undesirable and urged that the Council deny the
requested extensions of time.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Roberts stated that at the time the
reclassification and variance pertaining to these tentative tracts (Reclassifica-
tion No. 71-72-30 and Variance No. 2327) were considered, the applicant was
requesting R-1 with waiver of minimum lot area, with some lot areas down to
6,000 square feet, and the position of the Planning Commission was contrary to
allowing any lots smaller than 7,200 square feet in this particular portion of
the canyon. He further noted that information from the Orange County Flood Con-
trol District advised that this particular area of the canyon would not be
subject to a lO0-year frequency storm.
Councilman Seymour stated that although he is not entirely in favor of
these proposed subdivisions, he felt reasonableness has to rule in view of
economic conditions. His interpretation, therefore, of the situation is that
the developer is given one more year in order to accomplish this construction,
but that he felt, all things being equal, once this extension expired, he would
not be inclined to grant another.
City Engineer James Maddox advised that according to the Subdivision Map
Act, this extension, being the second, would be the last which could be granted
these tracts; they will automatically expire on April 24, 1976 if not underway
at that time.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City
Council granted a one-year extension of time to Tentative Map, Tract Nos. 7731,
7732, and 7733, Revision Nos. 3, expiring April 24, 1976. To this motion,
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - APPROVAL OF SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21
AND VARIANCE NO. 2310: Site plans and elevations submitted by the property owners,
for development of a commercial complex on property located on the north side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway in the CL (SC) Zone were pre-
sented for Council review and approval, the proposed plot plans being posted on
the east wall of the Council Chambers.
The City Planning Commimsion at their meeting of February 3, 1975, deter-
mined the site plans and elevations as submitted by Imperial Properties for the
easterly portion of the subject property were in substantial conformance with
the original concept plans. Further, the site plans and elevations as submitted
by Freeway Properties for the westerly portion of subject property were deter-
minad not to be in ~ubstantial conformance with the original concept plans.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts described the location of the property and advised
that Council's consideration of these site plans will affect two parcels, one
comprised of 11 acres owned by Imperial Properties and the other of 4 acres on
the western portion, owned by Freeway Commercial Properties. Mr. Roberts sum-
marized the zoning history on subject parcel beginning in February of 1972,
which led to its present status of CL (C-i) zoning, with certain waivers from
75-156
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTE8 - February 18, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
site development standards relating to: free-standing signs; a service station
which was proposed at that time which would not be located at the intersection
of two arterial highways; set back requirements from a freeway right-of-way in
the Scenic Corridor Zone; and dimensions of planters in the parking area.
In conjunction with this reclassification and variance, Area Development
Plan No. 109 was considered to determine the most desirable means of providing
access to the properties involved in the development proposal, and Exhibit No.
B was adopted by the City Council. The adoption of Area Development Plan No.
109 established Access Point No. 6A thereby providing for a new public street
to serve subject property and an additional access point to accommodate prop-
erties south of Santa Aha Canyon Road.
Subsequent to the approval of CL (C-i) zoning on the property, Imperial
Properties requested an additional private driveway from their property to
Santa Aha Canyon Road which was granted subject to the limitation that said
driveway be built to function as a right-turn only, in and out driveway,
without median barriers until traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road reaches 25,000
a.d.t., at which time the developer will be required to install two raised
medians which would, in effect, create a right-turn only lane along the north
side of Santa Ana Canyon Road onto Imperial Highway.
Mr. Roberts explained that Imperial Properties has presented a revised
plot plan with significantly different building orientation, the major portion
of the structures now in an "L" shaped configuration, with some free-standing
buildings near Santa Ana Canyon Road. This plan indicates the same public
street (Via Cortez) as previously, which would be extended northwesterly and
stubbed out into the Freeway Commercial property. The plan also indicates a
30-foot wide vehicular access easement which would extend from the public
street in a westerly direction to provide access for Freeway Commercial Prop-
erties. From the new private driveway that was previously granted Imperial
Properties, the plan indicates an accessway extending into the property, then
proceeding in a northwesterly direction to tie in with a circulation system
that would be developed on the Freeway Commercial Properties parcel. He noted
the plans for development of the Imperial Properties parcel conform to site
development standards of the CL Zone, as amended by Variance No. 2310.
Mr. Roberts explained the plot plan for Freeway Commercial Properties
which shows two buildings, one indicated to be a market and the other a bank.
In addition, this plot plan shows driveway access to Imperial Highway, which
has been the subject of considerable discussion at Planning Commission and
Redevelopment Commission meetings. Mr. Roberts reported that the State of
California acquired the vehicular access rights from this property to Imperial
Highway and these rights have not been relinquished to a property owner. The
State has relinquished a portion of Imperial Highway extending northerly from
Santa Ana Canyon Road to the City of Anaheim and, therefore, the City now
controls the vehicle access rights to subject property. The proposed driveway
access to Imperial Highway is contrary to the City's past position from a
safety viewpoint. Freeway Commercial Properties, however, do have a 20-foot
wide accessway from their property to Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Mr. Roberts reported that numerous meetings have been held by the Planning
Commission and Redevelopment Commission because of their concerns relative to
potential access and circulation problems. The City Planning Commission feels
that both parcels should be developed as a single project with accessways
interrelated. The Redevelopment Commission has expressed similar concerns and
a number of alternate development schemes have been prepared and studied to
provide the means of alternate access. He reported that the Planning Commission
did make a recommendation to the City Council that the plans for Imperial
Properties are in substantial conformance with those approved in January of
1974 and have recommended denial of the plans submitted by Freeway Commercial
Properties, primarily based on the fact that this plan indicates an accessway
onto Imperial Highway.
Mr. Roberts further reported that just prior to the meeting Mrs. Dinndorf
raised the question of an environmental impact report on the Rinker-Imperial
Properties project and on review of the files, it was ascertained that although
there was correspondence regarding an E.I.R., no report was actually submitted
or certified regarding this project.
75-157
City Halls Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
In response to the Mayor Pro Tem, the City Attorney noted that the approval
of zoning pursuant to Reclassification No. 71-72-21 probably took place before
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 were
mandatory, and if so, it would not now be a timely moment to raise the question
of an E.I.R. He advised that he did feel the Council would be permitted under
the provisions of the CEQA to take action on the requested approval of plans
and elevations this date.
Mr. Harry Rinker advised that he was in agreement with the recommendations
submitted by the City Planning Commission and would not address the Council at
this time but wished to reserve the right to address remarks to the Council in
rebuttal.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposi-
tion to the proposed site plans and elevations.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Associa-
tion, Inc., and Secretary of C.O.A.L., 131 La Paz Street, voiced the opinion
that since the California Environmental Quality Act was adopted in 1970 and the
project under discussion given zoning approval in 1972, and said project is
comprised of i1 acres, it would seem to her necessary that an environmental
impact report or a Negative Declaration would be required. Mrs. Dinndorf
remarked that her group would prefer to see the two properties in question
integrated and developed into a diversified shopping center, which is needed by
the area residents.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mrs. Dinndorf advised that her group would
be in favor of permitting access onto Imperial Highway only if it were abso-
lutely necessary, i.e., if the development problems could not be worked out to
provide for an integrated shopping center, which in her opinion should include
a department store.
Mr. Knowlton Fernald advised that he has been directed by the Community
Redevelopment Commission to convey their action and point of view in regard to
subject project. Me indicated that on January 22, 1975, the Redevelopment Com-
mission reviewed both projects and approved the Rinker Development, disapproving
Freeway Commercial Properties project. One week later, however, they rescinded
their motions and requested a 30-day delay to allow the staff to work with both
developers to produce a plan which would prove to be an asset to the total
canyon area and would also incorporate redevelopment project goals and objec-
tives.
Mr. Fernald stressed that the Redevelopment Commission and staff feel that
the Rinker project itself is well designed for its parcel of land, however, the
problem is the situation which approval of that plan creates on the remaining
parcels and the possibility of additional State freeway land coming into the
development should also be considered. He pointed out that there are still two
remedies available to the Redevelopment Agency in connection with development
of these parcels should Council approve the Rinker plans as submitted, either
they may enter a participation agreement with Mr. Rinker for acquisition and/or
development of the entire property in that area or with Freeway Commercial
Properties for development of that property, as well as adjacent freeway land,
and the Agency might participate in construction of a road to provide access to
both parcels.
The Mayor Pro Tem offered Mr. Rinker an opportunity to speak in rebuttal.
Mr. Harry Rinker, representing Imperial Properties, advised that he
recalled a Negative Declaration Status from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report was discussed in connection with his project. He
summarized the road access situation and their compromise following many meet-
ings through which his firm agreed to grant access to the adjacent property
between their buildings, which plan, in his opinion, provides a definite,
complete and desirable design without shortcomings.
Mr. Rinker outlined the reasons for the revisions to the plot plans,
specifically that the parking areas previously indicated would not have been
sufficient for the 27,000-square foot market and the drug store which were
IIII i, i
75-158
qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February .1.8~ 1975, 1:30 ?.M.
planned. The present revised plot plan shows a 40,000-square foot market. The
original plans also did not provide for the shallow service-type stores, whereas
the newer plan has a large amount of frontage for this type of store.
Mr. Rinker stated that realignment of the driveway proposed to serve
Freeway Commercial Properties was considered, but this would have caused his
project the loss of one complete free-standing building and a partial loss of
another, at a cost of over $200,000. However, the major reason this alignment
was declined was the fact that there was no way to control the movement of cars
going in front of the market, and this would have precluded their proceeding
with the supermarket lease. He reviewed some of his ideas for use of the
adjacent property with the access provided as shown on the revised plot plan.
He noted that any use which would not be a high traffic generator, such as a
furniture, hardware, or paint store would be suitable. He completely disagreed
that this area could be considered blighted unless the Council permits buildings
blighted in appearance to be constructed. He noted that his firm intends to
comply with the highest standards of shopping center construction, with full
mansard roofs on all four sides.
In conclusion, Mr. Rinker requested the plans be approved in accordance
with the Planning Commission recommendation, including the provision that his
firm be permitted to restrict traffic movement as indicated; and further
requested that in consideration of this traffic easement that there be deed
restrictions applied to the Freeway Commercial Properties property to prevent
the use of same for a market or a theater.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour noted that the representative from Freeway Commercial
Properties had not yet spoken to the issue and at the request of Council, Mr.
Robert S. Lewin, Attorney, Rutan & Tucker, 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa
Ana, California, 92702, addressed the Council. He advised that he had pre-
viously left copies of his proposed presentation for Council and once again
submitted copies at the Council meeting of his letter dated February 14, 1975
together with Exhibit Nos. A through I.
Mr. Lewin summarized him Exhibit Nos. A, B, and C, which are documents he
contended prove that the State of California bidding form at the time the
Freeway Commercial Properties parcel was offered for sale was incorrect in that
it did not reflect the relinquishment of access rights, and further the zoning
on the property was incorrectly indicated as R-A. It further did not indicate
the Order of Condemnation recorded in 1949, which reserved a 20-foot agricul-
tural access to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Lewin advised that there was also a
30-foot northern easement, however the license agreement for said easement was
null and void by its own terms since there was already an existing recorded
deed of access. Mr. Lewin stressed that Freeway Commercial Properties researched
the public records to ascertain these facts prior to submitting their bid for
the property. He referred Council to Exhibit Nos. D and F which also attest to
these facts. He concluded from these events that this particular property
which is owned by Freeway Commercial Properties, in fact, is entitled to the
same reasonable rights of access that any other property reasonably has and the
City controls these rights. He was of the opinion that if the State Department
of Highways felt an access point on Imperial Highway was dangerous or would
interfere with the freeway on-ramp they would not have relinquished those
rights to the City.
Mr. Lewin pointed out that the City Council, by granting the additional
access point to Imperial Properties approximately two months after the State
relinquishment, has given the Imperial property a substantial amount of develop-
ment potential since it is that particular driveway which will make their shop-
ping center work. He contended that the traffic situation is much the same on
Imperial Highway as it is on Santa Ana Canyon Road, where this temporary access
point has been granted. He referred to his Exhibit No. H, which is a letter
from the State Department of Transportation indicating that with appropriate
striping and signing, the access point requested on Imperial Highway would be
acceptable to the State. He noted that they have included in their site plans
a bus loading zone and commented that the use of the access easement available
to them to Santa Ana Canyon Road would result in a waste of gasoline, as well
as a delay for emergency vehicles.
75-159
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Lewin advised that the access easement as indicated on the Imperial
Properties proposed plot plan is not, in his opinion, sufficient for any kind
of commercial development for Freeway Commercial Properties and that if this is
the only access they have, they will not be able to obtain financing for develop-
ment.
Mr. Lewin displayed an aerial photograph of the traffic patterns around
the Los Cerritos Shopping Center and contended that the situation is similar to
what is proposed for these two parcels with the driveway access to Santa Ana
Canyon Road and with the requested access on Imperial Highway.
In conclusion Mr. Lewin stated that the Freeway Commercial property was
purchased following thorough investigation, and the State received a fair
return on said property. By virtue of the relinquishment of access rights by
the State, the property did have reasonable rights of access to public streets
which are necessary to reasonably develop a successful commercial venture. He
advised that his clients feel, without the Imperial Highway access point, there
is no way to develop their property, and this property is entitled to the same
type of consideration as the Rinker property to enable development of a viable
shopping center.
In response to Councilman Sneegas' inquiry as to how his client would view
the deed restrictions proposed by Mr. Rinker, Mr. Lewin replied that originally
his client was willing to accept deed restrictions against the use of their
property for a market and theater if Mr. Rinker would support their petition
for access onto Imperial Highway, and indicated they would still be willing to
accept restrictions against these two uses.
Councilwoman Kaywood took exception to the comparison made by Mr. Lewin of
this proposed shopping center with the Los Cerritos Shopping Center which
contains four or six major department stores drawing traffic froma multi-
county area. Further, the canyon area is in the rural, scenic corridor and she
was of the opinion such comparison was an unfair analysis.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Freeway Commercial Properties parcel was
for sale. Mr. Lewin replied that other developers have approached them with
offers of purchase and they have entered into escrow with one of the parties,
and if the potential buyer is an important consideration, they would be willing
to discuss this matter with the Council. When his clients purchased the prop-
erty, they took title with the full intent they could develop the property
themselves if necessary, as they have developed substantial shopping centers
throughout California.
At the conclusion of discussion Mr. Lewin reiterated that his client sees
only two alternatives to the situation: 1) an integrated center, 2) that their
property be granted access to Imperial Highway. He indicated their willingness
to accept similar restrictions on right-hand out only traffic and that such use
be restricted when the traffic on Imperial Highway reaches 25,000 a.d.t.
In rebuttal, Mr. Rinker stressed that he purchased his property some ten
years ago, whereas the other property owner took title recently. He pointed
out that the Freeway Commercial Propertiem parcel has the commercial advantage
of being in an extremely visible location, adjacent to two well-traveled streets,
and consideration should be given to this factor which will help to make a
commercial development on same viable.
Mr. Lewin replied that his client has thoroughly investigated the situation
and has concluded that no commercial use could be made with the present configu-
ration and without reasonable access the property would be landlocked and
virtually condemned, which statement they feel can be supported in court.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour indicated that he felt sufficient evidence had been
presented, and the remainder of the Council present concurred.
Councilman Seymour remarked that the position of the City Council on
granting access points to Santa Ana Canyon Road has been that a limited number
of points be provided and he personally felt the same is applicable to Imperial
Highway. He indicated that he even had qualms about the driveway access which
75-]00
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ebruary, 18, 1975, 1'30 F.M.
was granted to the Rinker property. In the consideration of this situation, he
stated that he personally would find it very distasteful to see government
involved in this area to the degree of becoming instrumental in condemning or
using its power of eminent domain to acquire the parcels. He feels government
has to recognize the rights of individual property owners.
Councilman Seymour stated it appeared to him that the best utilization o£
subject land, if it were possible, would be to have an integrated shopping
center to the degree that one development would be compatible with the other,
however, it is obvious the two property owners cannot agree as to "maximum
utilization" in the development of their properties. After consideration of
this problem, he indicated he would be inclined to advise Freeway Commercial
Properties they would not have access to Imperial Highway and also would not be
able to use the agricultural easement to Santa Ana Canyon Road unless they
intend to use the property for agricultural purposes. He voiced the opinion
that the best access solution to be provided this property would be by some
type of frontage road along the southerly boundary of the Rinker property,
recognizing that would mean removal of a building and consequent economic loss
to that owner. He summarized that this solution appears to him to be the best
manner in which to provide the necessary access without creating difficulties
on either Santa Ana Canyon Road or Imperial Highway and without the necessity
of government entering the development picture.
Councilman Sneegas concurred with Councilman Seymour's remarks relative to
government interference but related his concern that on government-owned prop-
erty to the north and across the freeway, where an equestrian center is planned,
the State has worked out and granted access to Imperial Highway with possible
direct connection to the freeway. That if the experts can make that access
work, he personally felt that an Imperial Highway access to subject property
was a viable possibility, and particularly, since the petitioner is willing to
make other access arrangements if and when the traffic reaches a certain point.
When that time comes, perhaps an Imperial access would not be needed to make
the shopping center profitable, because the traffic will already be there,
diminishing the need for the added access. Under these circumstances, he
stated he would have no objection to granting the Imperial Highway access point
subject to the same stipulations as the temporary driveway on Santa Ana Canyon
Road granted the Rinker property.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she felt if access is given and then
taken away, it would cause an uproar. She indicated that there is no way she
could vote to approve the requested access point on Imperial Highway since she
considers it a potential deathtrap. In addition, she indicated that the grant-
ing of unlimited access points to these roads would create the same situation
as has occurred in other parts of the City, such as West Lincoln Avenue and
Brookhurst Avenue.
Councilman Seymour concluded from the discussion that the original access
point (Via Cortez) adopted was inadequate to serve this substantial piece of
property,with which Mr. Rinker agreed.
Further discussion of the access problem was held during which Mr. Fernald
presented his opinion of the appropriate solution to serve all of the parcels
dependant upon this one access point. Mr. Roberts described a proposed loop
system providing adequate access for both properties, as well as those to the
north, which was prepared following discussions with the Planning Commission
and Development Services Department staff.
Mr. Rinker contended that he had considered a loop system, but that it
would preclude his having the space needed for a 40,O00-square foot market and
parking for 200 cars, thereby reducing the value of his property by 65% to 70%
from the current plot plan.
Mr. Lewin reiterated that his client feels the Imperial Highway access
point will resolve everyone's problem. He further read from the Order of Con-
demnation (submitted as Exhibit No. D) to indicate that the 20-foot access
granted was not intended for agricultural purposes only, that there are no
limitations included on its use.
75-161
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Sneegas moved to approve the site plans and elevations as pro-
posed for both Imperial Properties and Freeway Commercial Properties with
temporary access driveway to Imperial Highway for right-turn out traffic only,
subject to review and revocation once the total traffic on said highway reaches
25,000 a.d.t.; the previously granted temporary access to Santa Ana Canyon Road
for Imperial Properties to remain as before; and further subject to the submis-
sion of precise plans for development by Freeway Commercial Properties prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Said motion died for a lack of second.
Councilman Seymour moved for a three-week continuance of the matter with
the understood objective that following this three-week period, an access plan
will be developed which will make some sense, i.e., Without plans for access to
Imperial Highway at any time; and with'a frontage road along the southerly por-
tion of the Rinker property which would adequately serve the Freeway Commercial
property. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley and
Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
If the matter cannot be resolved in this time frame, Councilman Seymour
indicated he would be inclined to approve the Imperial Properties plans as sub-
mitted, without the secondary temporary access point to Santa Aha Canyon Road.
Mr. Rinker stated that this suggestion is agreeable to him and further
proposed that both parties submit to a standard arbitration agreement to engage
M.A.I. appraisers to ascertain what, if any, cost to his property would be
taken by the frontage road, said cost to be reimbursed by the adjacent property
owner when that property develops, and he would provide them with whatever
accesses they wanted.
Councilman Seymour suggested also that redevelopment funds might be used
as a trade-off to improve public streets. He indicated this to be an approach
he could live with which would also relieve the developer of some hard dollar
costs.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that if the two parties involved are unable
to reach some agreement regarding the access situation within the three-week
time, that they request a continuance rather than spend any further Council
time, since it is essentially a matter which must be resolved among themselves.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Seymour called the meeting to order, all Members of
the City Council being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley and
Mayor Thom. (5:20 P.M.)
TRACT NO. 8081 - APPROVAL OF FLOOR PLAN~ .ELEVATIONS~. SOUND-ATTENUATION MEASURES:
Letter dated February 3, 1975 from Mr. Terry L. Crowther, Pacesetter Homes,
Inc., 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, was submitted advising that Tract No.
8081 will be a continuation of Tract No. 8080, with construction of identical
houses and sound-attenuation measures.
Also submitted was report from Development Services Department, Zoning
Division, recommending that the floor plans, elevations and sound-attenuation
measures submitted and approved by the City Council on May 7, 1974 for Tract
No. 8080 be approved as satisfying Condition Nos. 10 and 11 for Tract No. 8081
.which will be built exactly the same.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City
Council approved floor plans, elevations and sound-attenuation measures pre-
viously submitted for Tract No. 8080, to be used in Tract No. 8081, satisfying
Condition Nos. 10 and 11 of approval of said tract. Councilman Pebley and
Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 8081: Developer, Pacesetter Homes, Inc.; tract located
north of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway; containing 58 RS-5000
zoned lots.
75-1~2
Cin7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map
conforms substantially with the tenative map previously approved, that bonds
have been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval and required fees paid.
On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas moved that
Final Map, Tract No. 8081 be approved, subject to approval of required bonds by
the City Attorney. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley
and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NO. 2603, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8679 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS AND
ELEVATIONS: Revised floor plans and elevations for construction of Tract No.
8679 were submitted by Lewis R. Schmid, Schmid Development, Inc., together with
excerpt of the City Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1975, indicating
that the City Planning Commission recommended the revised plans as submitted be
approved as being in substantial conformance with the original approval of
Variance No. 2603.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the developer intends to include trash
compactors in these homes and commented that these appliances do not, as
originally intended, alleviate the solid waste disposal problem. She noted
that in the current energy crisis, ways should be sought to use less and not
more electricity, and therefore urged that the developer reconsider offering
the trash compactors in his new homes.
On recommendation of the City Planning Commission, on motion by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council approved the revised
floor plans and elevations submitted in connection with Variance No. 2603 for
construction of Tract No. 8679. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 8679 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-58 AND VARIANCE NO. 2603):
Developer, Schmid Development, Inc.; tract located north of Nohl Ranch Road,
between Imperial Highway and Anaheim Hills Road; containing 57 proposed RS-7200
zoned lots.
The City Engineer reported that said final map conforms substantially with
the tentative map previously approved and required fees have been paid. He,
therefore, recommends that Final Map of Tract No. 8679 be approved subject to:
1. Receipt of tract improvement bonds and approval by the City Attorney.
2. Approval of a complete synopsis of the operating corporation by the
City Attorney.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City
Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 8679, subject to the two conditions
recommended by the City Engineer. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS~ GRADING PERMITS FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME SITES AT 1112 MOHLER DRIVE, 6548 AND 6550 COUNTRY HILL ROAD: In
connection with the applications for grading permits received for single-family
home sites at 1112 Mohler Drive, 6548 and 6550 Country Hill Road, on motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council finds
that these projects will have no significant effect on the environment and are,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare environmental impact reports,
as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Pebley and Mayor
Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
BUENA PARK VARIANCE NO. V-714: Zoning Supervisor Roberts related that at the
Council meeting held February 4, 1975, the City Council considered revised
plans submitted in conjunction with Buena Park Variance No. V-714 to construct
a 21-unit apartment complex on a triangular shaped parcel of land located at
the westerly terminus of Savanna Street, and following that consideration the
Anaheim City Council, by motion, recommended approval of the revised plans
submitted. Subsequent to that meeting several residents of Savanna Street had
requested that the City Council reconsider their action of February 4, 1975.
75-163
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Roberts pointed out that when this proposed development is evaluated
in terms of all Anaheim site development standards, there are deviations from
the parking spaces required and from the limitation of one-story apartments
within 150 feet of any single-family zoned property. In this case the property
immediately adjacent and to the east is in the R-A Zone developed with a single-
family home. The proposed plan would place one corner of a building within 15
feet of the R-A Zone boundary. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct
the apartment units up to the railroad right-of-way instead of maintaining the
required building setback and to use that 10 feet for patios.
Mr. Roberts noted that this variance has been denied by the Buena Park
Planning Commission and appealed to the Buena Park City Council, with public
hearing date set for March 3, 1975.
Mrs. William Todd, Jr., 3620 Savanna Street, Spokeswoman for the residents
of Savanna Street in opposition to Variance No. V-714, submitted a petition
indicating they base their opposition on the following:
1. Increased density and traffic from the proposed development which
would greatly increase the danger to children.
2. Since the owner, Mr. Rossworn, has indicated he intends to annex his
property to the City of Anaheim, he should be required to meet the requirements
of Anaheim site development standards.
3. A variance to allow a two-story structure within 15 feet adjacent to
Anaheim R-A zoned property is unfair inasmuch as the Anaheim standard is 150
feet between a two-story structure and single-family zoned property.
4. The proposed revised plans indicate only one-half of the cul-de-sac,
which means that the other half must be constructed from the property adjacent
to that which is now being developed. The entire cul-de-sac will be needed
immediately in order to accommodate service and emergency vehicles for the
apartment units.
5. The lower than standard number of parking spaces will add to the
existing parking problem on Savanna Street.
6. The additional cars generated by the apartments parked on the undevel-
oped sides of Savanna Street will decrease the accessway for emergency vehicles.
In discussing the above points, Mrs. Todd stressed that the City of Buena
Park requirements are not as stringent as those of Anaheim and Mr. Rossworn~
the owner of subject property, at the Planning Commission hearings in Buena
Park repeatedly remarked that he did intend to eventually annex to the City of
Anaheim. Further, she noted that Mr. Rossworn indicated at these hearings that
an employee of the City of Anaheim advised him to first proceed to acquire
approval of his project in the City of Buena Park and then request annexation
to the City of Anaheim. She related an incident on Savanna Street during which
a home was destroyed by fire because it took the fire truck ten minutes to gain
access to the street due to the number of curiosity seekers, and cited this as
an example of what could happen with the proposed apartment project which would
be located all the way at the end of Savanna Street.
Mrs. Todd advised that the majority of the property owners were not inter-
ested in developing their property for some time to come and preferred the
unique, rural atmosphere they currently enjoy on their street.
Councilman Seymour inquired as to whether the allegations regarding a City
of Anaheim employee advising the developer to go forward under Buena Park
standards and then later apply for annexation were made at a public meeting and
were a matter of public record, to which Mrs. Todd replied affirmatively,
advising that the meeting had been tape recorded and those tapes were available
for public use.
Councilman Seymour further inquired whether Mrs. Todd would be opposed to
this particular apartment project if it were planned to completely conform to
Anaheim site development standards, to which Mrs. Todd replied she would not be
opposed if such were the case.
Councilman Sneegas advised that the density and type of units proposed by
Mr. Rossworn were in conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan for this
particular area and since there were no objections received at the time the
revised plans were considered, the Council generally feels such zoning is to
the financial benefit of surrounding property owners.
75-164
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ 19.7_5~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Todd described~ her efforts in contacting members of the City Council
and City staff in connection with the proposal and advised that she was not
aware of the Anaheim City Council meeting at which the revised plans were
submitted.
Mr. Watts and Mr. Davis answered Mrs. Todd's questions regarding the
provision of the utility and other municipal services across city boundaries.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour explained that this
matter concerns him on two points: 1) That from what Mrs. Tood has indicated,
there are allegations that an employee of the City of Anaheim has conducted
himself in a manner which appears to be advocating that the developer circumvent
the development standards of the City of Anaheim; and his further concern is
that 2) If the City of Anaheim eventually does annex this property, that the
project, in fact, conform totally to the Anaheim Zoning Code.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the City Council of the City of
Anaheim recommend that the City of Buena Park deny Variance No. V-714 and
recommend to the developer that he apply for annexation to the City of Anaheim;
or in lieu thereof, if said variance is approved by the City of Buena Park, and
if the property owner indicates his intent to annex to the City of Anaheim,
that the development conform to all applicable site development standards of
the City of Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman
Pebley and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour further requested that staff obtain a verbatim transcript
of the proceedings before the Buena Park Planning Commission which are pertinent
to discussion of the potential annexation of Mr. Rossworn's property to the
City of Anaheim, and these be made available to the Anaheim City Council Members.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that she was not aware of the City of
Anaheim residents' objections to this project prior to this meeting and cer-
tainly would have not voted to recommend approval of a project if she had known
that the applicant would be short of the required number of parking spaces and
would be constructing only one-half of a cul-de-sac since she is strongly
opposed to such premature forcing of development.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-97 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 716-B: In accordance with recom-
mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No.
75R-97 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE 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 PERFORMING
ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT:
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT INTERSECTION OF EUCLID
STREET AND ROMNEYA DRIVE (WEST SIDE), IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO.
716-B. (C.T. & F., Inc. - $13,472.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood~ Snee§as and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 75R-97 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - SUB-COMPACT 2-DOOR SEDANS (TWO UNITS): The Assistant
City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of two units
of sub-compact 2-door sedans for the Electrical Division and recommended accept-
ance of the low bid submitted by Villa Ford, Orange, California, in the amount
of $3,016.44, including tax, for the 1974 model without air conditioning and
$3,357.68, including tax, for one unit 1974 model with air conditioning.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the low
bid of Villa Ford was accepted and purchase authorized in the total amount of
$6,374.12, including tax. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
75 -165
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18~ .1975~ 1:30 P.M.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE-HALF TON SUB-COMPACT PICKUP TRUCK: The Assistant
City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of one unit,
one-half ton sub-compact pickup truck and recommended acceptance of the low bid
submitted by Villa Ford, Orange, California, in the amount of $2,859.53, includ-
ing tax.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the low
bid of Villa Ford was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $2,859.53,
~ncluding tax. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 30-FOOT AERIAL DEVICE WITH VAN BODY AND CHASSIS: The
Assistant City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of
one 30-foot aerial device with van body and chassis for the Electrical Division
and recommended that based on price, compliance with'specifications and delivery
date that the bid of Telsta Division of General Cable Company in the amount of
$20,796.97, including tax, be accepted.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the bid
of Telsta Division, General Cable Company was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $20,796.97, including tax. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF MATERIALS - CAST IRON PIPE: The Assistant City Manager reported on
informal bids received for the purchase of 810 feet of 8-inch ductile pipe and
198 feet of 4-inch gray pipe and recommended acceptance of the low bid submitted
by Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Company in the amount of $5,474.95, including
tax, for both items.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the low
bid of Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Company was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $5,474.95, including tax. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF SERVICES: The Assistant City Manager reported on a service proposal
from Ausco to perform waterblasting of a retaining wall at Twila Reid Park and
recommended said service proposal be authorized.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
proposal of Ausco to perform services in connection with waterblasting the
retaining wall at Twila Reid Park in the amount of $5,995.02, was authorized.
Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3401: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3401 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION NO. 1.04.260 AND ADDING
A NEW SECTION TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PURCHASING AGENT POWERS.
(Purchasing Agent designated as officer of City for signing of contracts in
name of City when item does not exceed $2,500 each and total order not to
exceed $10,000 in any one contract)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3401 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. for public hearings
scheduled on the Community Development Application proposal. Councilman Sneegas
seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom absent. MOTION CARRIED.
(6:00 P.M.)
Signed ~--~j=~ ~m ~ ~
-- D~puty City Clerk
75-166
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Seymour called the meeting to order for the purpose
of conducting the scheduled public hearing on the Community Development Applica-
tion proposal. (7:00 P.M.)
PRE§ENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Thom
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Dan Van Dorpe
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Bill West
PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROPOSAL: Public hearing was
held to consider the following programs in connection with the Community Develop-
ment Application proposal.
1. A three-year Community Development Plan (City-wide specifying needs,
goals, and both short- and long-term objectives).
2. A housing assistance plan (City-wide to identify needs, goals, objec-
tives and locations).
3. A one-year Community Development Program (to identify City-wide activi-
ties and a one-year development program for the area generally bounded by
Cypress Street on the south, Sycamore Street on the north, Anaheim Boulevard on
the west and Santa Fe Railroad tracts on the east).
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour welcomed those citizens present to the hearing and
requested a show of hands from those who had been informed to any degree of the
Community Development Program. In order to provide the necessary background
for discussion, the Mayor Pro Tem requested that the Development Services
Department staff present the same slide show describing the proposed programs
and budget as was shown at the public hearing held February 11, 1975, after
which he indicated that public participation would be encouraged and all ques-
tions answered.
Mr. Bill West, Assistant Planner, displayed the series of slides as sum-
marized in the Minutes of February 11, 1975, Page Nos. 75-120 through 75-125
and the information on these slides was simultaneously translated into Spanish
and explained by Mrs. Montoya.
Following the slide presentation, Mayor Pro Tem Seymour opened the meeting
to the audience for questions, comments and criticisms on the proposal.
(During this period Mrs. Montoya continued to simultaneously translate both
questions and answers into Spanish.)
Mr. Edward Greco, 307 North Philadelphia Street, voiced strong opposition
to the proposed allocation of $102,000 for air conditioning at the Chartres
Recreation Center. He indicated that he based this opposition on the fact that
this building is located outside of the pilot program area and in the Redevelop-
ment Project Area and therefore the funds for the air conditioning should come
from Project Alpha. He indicated that he considered it unfair that only $24,000
is shown for rehabilitation and repair of dwelling units in the pilot project
area, in which there are a total of 227 dwelling units, and $102,000 allocated
for a buildin$ which is only used part time.
Councilman Seymour replied that the $24,000 shown in the proposed budget
under the housing repair category refers to materials only and he wished to
clarify that an additional $85,000 in labor through C.E.T.A. funds would be
added to this sum.
Mr. Edward Fleisahour, 300 South Laxore Street, read a prepared statement
in favor of the air conditioning of the Chartres Recreation Center. He explained
that other groups aside from the senior citizens use this facility and that
there are 800 persons who use the upstairs weekly. However in the summer
because of the extreme temperatures and poor circulation in that building, the
number of people using it drops to less than 175. Mr. Fleischour noted that
when the City acquired the building, it was intended that it be air conditioned.
He stressed that the Chartres Recreation Center serves 2,000 persons per week.
75-167
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Maude Addis, 127 West Cypress Street, spoke in favor of the air con-
ditioning at the Chartres Recreation Center.
Councilman Seymour explained that the City Council has been made very well
aware of the fact that a number of citizens are not desirous that $102,000 be
allocated for the air conditioning of the Chartres Recreation Center and, on
the other hand equally aware that a substantial number of citizens are inter-
ested in seeing this air conditioning system installed. He recognized that it
is the responsibility of the Anaheim City Council, with their understanding and
knowledge of this difference of opinion, to determine what priority will be
established with regard to the expenditure of these funds. He further urged
the citizens present to address other areas of the Community Development Act
Programs and proposed budget which might be of concern to them.
Mr. Victor Cervantes, 427 Claudina Street, questioned (with the aid of
Mrs. Montoya acting as interpreter) how the decision will be made as to which
homes will be selected for assistance in rehabilitation and what are the guide-
lines with which the homeowner must qualify in order to be considered.
Mr. Bill West replied that both HUD and the Department of Labor have
strict guidelines as to which homes the funds for material and C.E.T.A. training
teams may work on as rehabilitation projects. One prime criterion is that the
structure must be in need of improvement. A survey of the project area indi-
cates only 44% of the structures in need of some repair and 10% in need of
major repair, which amounts to less than half of the houses in the project area
requiring some improvement. A second criterion is the funds must be used to
benefit lower income families, which, in Anaheim, is defined as a family of
four with annual income at or below $5,000. However, if the rehabilitation
program is successful and accepted, the eligible annual income level may be
increased to as high as $8,500 or $9,000. He explained that the housing rehabil-
itation section of this proposal was designed as a pilot program to help unique
individuals with unique needs~ and the first year's program kept small to test
what might be done. He noted that the repair and rehabilitation program will
be entirely voluntary, individuals must request that these repairs be made on
their homes.
Councilman Seymour noted that one of the main efforts of the Community
Development Act Program, as evidenced by the allocation of funds~ is an attempt
to develop the capital needs of a neighborhood with improvement of streets and
street lighting, better utility services and improved sewer lines. It is hoped
that the City's expenditure of these funds in this manner would generate a
great amount of self-pride which would in turn lead to individual property
owners taking it upon themselves to improve their own properties. In this
connection, for those who do not qualify for direct aid in the housing repair
program, there will be very low interest loans available for these projects.
He further pointed out that the current budget proposal under consideration is
for $511,000 out of a total entitlement amount of $9,000,000, and represents
less than 6% of the total funds which will be available thereafter. Conse-
quently, it cannot be expected that this first year's allotment will allow the
City to do everything for everyone.
Mrs. Lois Selaya, 321 North Philadelphia, referred to the comment made
that the program is to be strictly voluntary and inquired about the situation
in which there is substandard housing with absentee owners.
Chief Building Inspector Dan Van Dorpe explained that the work performed
under Category No. I, housing repair will be voluntary and apply only to those
structures which are owner occupied, whereas Category II which relates to
housing conservation and Code enforcement will apply to all existing structures.
He advised in further answer to Mrs. Selaya that this program will provide
under Item No. 2 for an individual to inspect and assist people with substandard
housing complaints and provide follow up on these. He stated that the Building
Division would work with property owners and help them to identify substandard
conditions, and where these can be referred to the housing repair program for
assistance, this will be done.
Mr. Emilio Sandoval, 314 East Chartres Street, (with translation from
Spanish by Mrs. Montoya) inquired about the possibility of condemnation and
removal of homes.
75-i68
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1.8~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour assured those present that by all means the major
emphasis of this effort is to save every bit of housing which can be rehabili-
tated, since the Council does not feel that condemning those buildings which
can be rehabilitated meets the needs of lower and middle income housing.
Mrs. Lois Selaya questioned whether the Council felt this Code enforcement
program might result in higher rent after the repairs are made by the landlord.
She noted that many of the Spanish surnamed and elderly people in the area are
already paying high rentals for the existing units, and if they cannot afford
to pay any more, she wondered if there would be any funding to assist them with
these increased rentals.
Mr. West reported that there is a possibility of some form of rent subsidy
under Title II of the Community Development Act and there is also the possibil-
ity of increasing the supply of low income housing. He noted that the purpose
of Section 6C in the proposed budget which allocates funds for a low income
housing study is to investigate these alternatives, noting that this is a
rather new situation for the City of Anaheim. This study would undoubtedly
include the possibility of some form of rent subsidy similar to that method
used in Santa Ana, however it is unlikely that this would be available during
the first year.
Mrs. Montoya indicated that a gentleman had asked her a question prior to
the meeting which she would like to address to Council. This man advised her
that he has experience and professional skills as a contractor and knows elec-
trical and other types of work. He has been able to obtain some part-time jobs
doing remodeling and reconstruction in Anaheim, but is not able to speak English
and has no savings or funds with which to initiate a business. He inquired
whether there would be any job opportunities for himself and several others
whom he knows in this project area to use their skills in the housing repair
program.
Councilman Seymour advised that this is exactly the type of labor which is
being sought, those individuals who live in the immediate area and need the
employment.
Mr. Antonio Garcia, 805 North Topeka Street, came forward and was identi-
fied by Mrs. Montoya as the gentleman she had referred to and with Mrs. Montoya's
assistance in translation, he informed the Council that if he and the others he
knows of were given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and ability,
they would guarantee their work.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Garcia to please submit a list of the names
and addresses of the men with these skills and Mr. Garcia agreed.
At the conclusion of discussion, a gentleman from the audience (unident-
ified) thanked the Council for the opportunity to meet and discuss these pro-
grams and advised them that he had enjoyed the session. He indicated his
approval of the program and agreed that upgrading of housing for low and middle
income people should have priority over the air conditioning but suggested
perhaps the senior citizens might also look forward to that as well.
Mr. Edward Greco concurred that there is no question but that the Chartres
Recreation Building needs air conditioning and he too would like to see this
accomplished but noted that there is a greater priority. He stated that if the
City has promised to air condition the building the money for this should come
from Project Alpha.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether Mrs. Montoya felt there is a need for
English-Spanish conversation classes at the City's new Community Services
Center to which Mrs. Montoya replied affirmatively.
Councilman Seymour further advised that the City Council has recently
appointed an ad hoc committee to conduct a four month study which will evaluate
the broad spectrum of social services which are presently available from the
Federal, County and State governments to determine what the municipal government
of the City of Anaheim can do to facilitate delivery of same. He encouraged
Mrs. Montoya to join in and work with this group.
75-169
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further comments or questions from the audience, Mayor Pro
Tam Seymour declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussion ensued regarding the possibility of replacing the
$102,000 allocation for air conditioning at the Chartres Recreation Center and
Mr. West assured Council that there would be no difficulty in making such a
change, that the final review by S.C.A.G. will not occur until submission of
the final application form on March 4 or 5, 1975. He further indicated that he
did not think it would be possible to use the $102,000 from the air conditioning
project in Category No. I since this was set up as a pilot program and the
commitment from C.E.T.A. funds for manpower has already been made. He suggested
that these additional funds might be placed into Category No. VIC-low income
housing study, using the $102,000 as a first contribution to the loan fund
program.
Mr. West displayed a slide entitled "additional neighborhood improvement
projects" which listed the following and discussion of the various alternate
possibilities was held.
1. Alley/sewer reconstruction (2,500 linear feet of alleys and sewers),
$81,509.
2. Sidewalks, curb and gutter reconstruction (priority areas), $61,085.
3. Street lighting (entire area), $38,400.
4. Sewer reconstruction (outside alleys), $61,291.
5. Street reconstruction (11,000 linear foot), $223,000.
6. Replace water system, $209,640.
7. Conversion of 4 kV to 12 kV, $66,000.
8. Mini park (would require site), $60,000.
Discussion regarding the potential reallocation of the $102,000 ensued and
Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that he would prefer to see these funds
retained for use within the pilot project area and inquired if there would be
any difficulty in dividing same equally between Category No. I - home repairs
and Category No. V - neighborhood improvements via capital projects.
Mr. West explained that this is clearly a possibility if it is Council's
desire. He stressed that it is important, however, to keep in mind that the
goals set for use of the funds in the first year be realistic since the program
will be evaluated on the basis of achievements. In connection with Category
No. V, he indicated that there is the need to coordinate these efforts with
what is being done in Project Alpha.
Following additional discussion, Councilman Seymour stated that he felt
Item Nos. 6 and 7 on the list of alternative City projects, which relate to the
provision of proper utilities, are of a high priority. He suggested that
perhaps the funds should be designated for use in neighborhood improvement,
leaving the decision flexible enough to allow some of the electrical conversion
to be performed, dependent upon scheduling.
·
Mr. West reported that the matter of final approval of the Community
Development budget proposal will have to come before Council again at the March
4, 1975 meeting as it is required that an environmental impact report be certi-
fied prior to final adoption of the program by the City. Therefore, no formal
action is necessary at this point, except that Council give staff direction as
to what they wish the final draft to include.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that if construction crews are to be in the
area and digging up the street for alley reconstruction or sewer lines, then
replacement of the water lines take precedence, but otherwise the electrical
conversion be first priority.
Councilman Sneegas stated that he was not yet convinced that the use of
the Community Development Act funds for electric conversion is the prime choice,
over the air conditioning project at Chartres Recreation Center, if the Council
wants a project which will show immediate beneficial results. He further
questioned whether this $66,000 for conversion from 4 to 12 kV includes conver-
sion all the way to the electrical substation which services the area and if it
does, then the funds are being used out of the project area.
75-170
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 18, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that he intended to address the problem of
providing air conditioning at Chartres Recreation Center as well, but in view
of the opinions expressed by the public, he would propose that it is the respon-
sibility of the City Council to deliver this air conditioning with redevelopment
funds and/ or find a way to appropriate these monies in the General Fund.
In reply to Councilman Sneegas' question as to what benefit the residents
within the Community Development Project neighborhood will receive from the
conversion of electric lines from 4 to 12 kV, Mr. Davis explained that this
project would replace an out-moded distribution voltage with a 12 kV system,
which is the system being used throughout the rest of the City. This will
reduce the occurrences of brownouts and other such electrical problems in the
area.
Councilman Sneegas stated that his point is that there is insufficient
information available at this time to make such a specific decision, and it is
still possible that it will be determined the best place to spend these funds
to receive the most obvious results is the air conditioning project.
At the conclusion of discussion, it was determined that staff would investi-
gate the different alternative possibilities discussed and report to Council
with recommendations for a draft budget proposal on February 25, 1975, at 1:30
P.M., under the unfinished business section of the Agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour expressed his appreciation on behalf of the City
Council to Mrs. Montoya for her assistance in translating and acting as inter-
pretor this evening.
Mrs. Montoya thanked the Council for giving the Spanish speaking people an
opportunity to be represented.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:45 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk