1978/03/21 78-324
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend W. Stanley Jensen of the West Anaheim Baptist Church gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Thom and
approved by the City Council:
"Day of Reverence - Good Friday" - March 24, 1978.
"Poison Prevention Week in Anaheim" - March 19-25, 1978.
The latter proclamation was accepted by Pastor Stief, Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Martin Luther Hospital.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes of
the City Council regular meeting held January 31, 1978, were approved subject to
typographical corrections. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Council-
man Ko tt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $523,152.58, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
161/123: CULTURAL ARTS NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY - REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE
REDEVELOPMENT.AGENCY: ($7,500) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
78R-170 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 13, 1978, from
the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-3~5
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 2~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-170: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (Cultural Arts Needs Assessment Survey)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-170 duly passed and adopted.
123/174: RESIDENTIALLY POTENTIAL AVAILABLE LAND STUDY: (Agreement with Ultrasystems,
Inc.) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-171 for adoption, as recom-
mended in memorandum dated March 14, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community
Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND ULTRASYSTEMS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-171 duly passed and adopted.
123/129: ABANDONMENT OF STREET FIRE ALARM BOX SYSTEM: (terminate agreement with
Pacific Telephone Company) On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the Fire Chief was authorized to initiate the action required to terminate
an agreement with Pacific Telephone Company for the street fire alarm box system,
as recommended in detailed memorandum dated March 14, 1978, from Fire Chief James
Riley. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
150: DEDICATION OF BROOKHURST COMMUNITY CENTER: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, dedication of the Brookhurst Community Center and
the format for the dedication to be held April 8, 1978, at 1:00 p.m., was approved
as recommended in memorandum dated March 15, 1978, from the Parks, Recreation and
Arts Director. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: EMPLOYEE DENTAL SERVICES - AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA DENTAL SERVICE:
(three-year period) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-172 for
adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 14, 1978 from the Personnel
Director. Refer to Resolution Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DENTAL SERVICE FOR DENTAL BENEFITS TO
CITY EMPLOYEES FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
78-326
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21, .1978, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-172 duly passed and adopted.
123: ORDINANCE NO. 3844 - AMENDMENT TO SAFETY MEMBERS RETIREMENT CONTRACT:
Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3844 for first reading, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 14, 1978, from the Personnel Director.
ORDINANCE NO. 3844: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
152/159: REVISION OF ENGINEERING FILING~ SERVICE AND PERMIT FEES: Councilwoman
Kaywood asked if the new proposed fees covered actual costs to the City.
City Manager Talley stated that they did so currently, and that would be true
for the balance of the fiscal year.
Director of Public Works Thornton Piersall explained that the main reason for the
proposed fee adjustment was to bring about a break even situation, and the fees
were not out of line when compared to those of other cities.
City Engineer James Maddox stated that Anaheim's fees were slightly lower than
three Orange County cities--Fullerton, Orange and Santa Ana.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-173 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated March 14, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-173 duly passed and adopted.
158: DEDICATION OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND RAMPART STREET FOR PUBLIC STREET AND
HIGHWAY PURPOSES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-174 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated March 14, 1978, from the City Engineer.
to Resolution Book.
Refer
78-327
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.
(Orangewood and Rampart Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-174 duly passed and adopted.
158: SALE OF CERRITOS AVENUE WELL SITE AND ACCESS ROAD TO ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNERS: (south side of Cerritos Avenue, east of Euclid Street) City Engineer
Maddox confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that all of the parcels listed in report
dated March 3, 1978, from the Assistant City Engineer would be sold.
City Manager Talley also confirmed that each of the bordering property owners had
an opportunity to purchase a portion of the well site and/or access road that
adjoined their particular properties. Some were not interested, and thus the
property was sold to the other property owners listed in the report.
Councilman Seymour read the last paragraph on page two of the subject report.
"We then proceeded to contact the other adjoining property owners to determine
if they were willing to purchase the excess City land next to their lots." He
wanted assurance that, in fact, there was a record that the City had contacted
the people involved.
Mr. Maddox stated that such a record existed in the Right-of-Way Divison's files.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-175 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated March 3, 1978, from the Assistant City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-175: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AGREEING TO SELL CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY. (Cerritos Avenue Well Site)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-175 duly passed and adopted.
124: CO-SPONSORSHIP OF PATRIOTIC MUSIC FESTIVAL: City Manager Talley explained
that on December 13, 1977, the Council denied a request for the Anaheim Elementary
School District to waive parking fees at the Convention Center for the District's
Patriotic Music Festival. On March 14, 1978, the School Board cancelled the
event do to the potential effects of Proposition 13. Thus, City staff was approached
with a request to bring the matter to the Council's attention one more time'as to
78-328
C. it~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
whether or not it would be possible for the Council to reconsider co-sponsoring
the event. No request for waiver of fees for parking was made, but only consid-
eration for donating any funds to the Festival as a co-sponsor for a public rela-
tions or promotional type of event.
Councilman Seymour explained that he received a number of inquiries relative to
the Council's position in denying the request relative to waiver of parking fees,
and he attempted to make it as clear as possible the reason for the longstanding
precedent. On the other hand, he shared in the concern that the community program
involving some 1,600 youths of the City through the schools was going to be abruptly
halted, especially since the participants had been actively preparing themselves
for the Festival. He discussed with the City Manager the possibility of the City
becoming, for this year only, a co-sponsor of the event with the School District,
and agreed to an expenditure not to exceed $3,000 from the Council Contingency
Fund, subject to the willingness of the School Board to pick up the remainder of
the budget so the currently planned performance could be concluded. He knew that
funds were available in the Council Contingency Fund for such a program this year,
and he hoped that the School Board would not drop it for the current year and then
reconsider under what basis they could carry it the next year.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that $3,000 be appropriated from the
Council Contingency Fund to co-sponsor the Anaheim Elementary School District
Patriotic Music Festival, April 20, 1978, on a one-time only basis, excluding
waiver of parking fees. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Councilman Kott
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application for Public Fireworks Display
Permit filed by the California Surf Major League Soccer to discharge fireworks at
Anaheim Stadium on March 31, April 4, (tentative) 15, 18, and 21, May 9, 19, and
31, June 7, 12, (tentative) 13, 21, and 24, July 12, 22, 26,'and 30, 1978 from
7:15 P.M. to 9:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the intent was to discharge the fireworks at the
beginning of the games, at the end, or each time a score was made. Because no
answer was readily available, she stated she would abstain since, when the Cali-
fornia Sun Football team played at Anaheim Stadium, fireworks were discharged
each time the team scored, thus causing numerous complaints from surrounding
residents.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, application for a
Public Fireworks Display Permit filed by California Surf Major League Soccer
was approved for the dates and times requested. Councilman Kott was absent.
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-28: Request for rehearing
filed by B. A. Smith on the subject reclassification, proposed RM-1200 zoning on
property located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, north of Ball Road.
Mayor Thom asked if any Council Member wished to take action on the request for
a rehearing. There being no response, the request died for lack of a motion.
78-329
C_ity ..Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Beverly J. Johnson for monetary damage purportedly sustained
as a result of actions taken by Anaheim Police on or about February 9, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Elisa Miller for property damage purportedly sustained as
a result of a tree falling on her automobile (816 S. Claudina) on or about
February 10, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by William L. Jones for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a tree limb falling and breaking a window at 1231 North Dresden
Place, Anaheim, on or about February 9, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Robin Albitz for property damage purportedly sustained as
a result of a tree limb falling on claimant's car on or about February 9, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Salvador Miranda Acevedo for property damage purportedly
sustained as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about
February 13, 1978.
f. Claim submitted by H. Maraldo for property damages purportedly sustained as
a result of a city-owned vehicle scraping Mr. Maraldo's fence at 1585 Lorane Way
during repair operations on or about February 11 or 12, 1978.
g. Claim submitted by Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club of Southern
California on behalf of Melvin Wobken, insured, for property damage purportedly
sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about
January 17, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 114: City of Antioch Resolution No. 78/33 opposing the Jarv±s-Gann Initiative
and supporting and urging the State Legislature to enact a suitable property tax
reform measure.
b. 173: Before the PUC Application No. 57360 Notice Resetting Hearing in the
matter of the application of Pacific Western State Lines, Inc., for a certificate
of public convenience and necessity to operate a sightseeing tour service between
points in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and the City of Newport Beach.
c. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of February 16, 1978.
d. 173: Inter-County Airport Authority Resolution No. 78-1 stating its position
on preconceived solutions to airport site location studies.
78-330
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
e. 175: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of December 1 and 15, 1977,
January 5 and 19, and February 2 and 16, 1978.
f. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of February 28, 1978.
g. 156: Monthly report for February 1978 - Police Department.
h. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 8, 1978.
i. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of February 28, 1978.
Councilman Ko tt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-176
through 78R-178, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Donald Semon,
et al.; Hazel V. Bowman; Properties Limited; Paul H. Reynolds, et al.; Prudential
Insurance Company of America; Albert A. Rohnke, et ux.; Rovi Pacific Realty Corp.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-177: 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 PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURE
FOUNDATIONS AT YORBA SUBSTATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 32-4803-611-
52-6395. (Jenkin Construction Company)
170: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND WEST OF HARBOR BOULEVARD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-176 through 78R-178, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held February 27, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
78-331
--City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
1. VARIANCE NO. 2991: Submitted by State College Anaheim Center, to increase
the height of an existing sign on CL zoned property located at 1021-1031 North
State College Boulevard with code waiver of maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-35, denied Variance
No. 2991 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
2. VARIANCE NO. 2993: Submitted by Frank M. and Jean G. Bell, to expand a
wholesale pipe supply facility on ML zoned property located at 215 East Ball
Road with code waiver of minimum front setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-36, granted
Variance No. 2993, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1805: Submitted by Rovi Pacific Realty Corporation,
to permit a wine tasting facility on CL-HS(SC) zoned property located at 6501 East
Serrano Avenue with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-37, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1805, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
4. ORANGE COUNTY USE PERMIT NO. 3893: Request submitted by Richard R. Tozer for
an Orange County Use Permit to expand the Rancho del Rio Stables located in an
unincorporated area south of Ball Road on the west side of the Santa Ana River.
The City Planning Commission approved said permit subject to review at the end
of a three-year period.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
VARIANCE NO. 2874 - PRECISE LANDSCAPING PLANS: Submitted by Ronald E. Allen,
requesting approval of precise landscaping plans for Variance No. 2874 to con-
struct self-service gasoline pumps and an office building on RS-A-43,000(SC)
zoned property located on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Imperial Highway.
Councilman Seymour stated he would abstain from any action taken on the subject
variance since he had a small office leasehold interest in the shopping center
on the corner opposite said subject project.
No action was taken by the Council on Variance No. 2874, precise landscaping
plans, which were approved by the City Planning Commission meeting of February 27,
1978; thus the action of the Planning Commission became final.
179: CLARIFICATION - "STORY" PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES: (structure
located at 2137 West Huntington Avenue) Recommendation pertaining to the clarifi-
cation of an ambiguity in the Code relating to the definition of "story".
78-332
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Clerk stated that a letter objecting to the Planning Commission's ruling
on the matter had been received from Mr. Sid Landau, and copies furnished to each
member of the Council.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that the Council had copies
of a recommended amendment to the Code, which would clarify the definition approved
by the City Planning Commission at their recent meeting.
Mr. Sid Landau, 2137 West Huntington Avenue, stated first that he was bothered by
the manner in which the Planning Commission handled the situation. On the day
the subject was to go before the Commission, he was told by the Secretary, he
would not have to be at the meeting starting at 1:30, but she would call him to
advise when he should be present. Instead, he called and that date the Secretary
had gone home ill, and by then, it was too late for him to attend the meeting on
time, but he attended in any case. When he arrived in the Planning Department,
he overheard staff members commenting to each other how nice it was that he (Landau)
had missed the meeting. Staff was then apologetic and indicated he should not have
been told that he not be present at the meeting at 1:30. He had gone to the Plan-
ning Department to retrieve photographs of the structure which he submitted to the
Council for their perusal. He also referred to the City Planning Commission resolu-
tion recommended to the City Council clarifying the existing ambiguity.of a "story"
in the Anaheim Municipal Code. His main objection revolved around the fact that
the Planning Commission was claiming that the walking on the edges of the floor
joists constituted a floor as far as the definition of the Code was concerned.
Mr. Landau continued that he was trying to find out if the Planning Commission
resolution applied to him directly, and he pointed out that some of the definitions
contained therein made the whole project even more ambiguous. He then elaborated
on some of the definitions which were unclear, and the questions thus resulting
from that lack of clarity. Specifically, he was trying to establish if the appli-
cation he now had in the Building Department, in order to obtain a building permit,
was acceptable. It passed all the requirements of the Building Department, but
for some reason it was bogged down in the Planning Department, and the building
permits could not be issued until the Planning Department approved the structure.
Miss Santalahti explained that zoning could not, in this instance, define the
maximum building height as being two and one-half stories or 35 feet whichever
was less. When Mr. Landau initially applied for a building permit, his project
involved a roof structure with a floor, as well as a ladder leading to it. The
structure was to be enclosed with a railing and glass or plexiglass. The concern
arose because the structure was on top of a two-story building, and it could have
people standing in it looking around the neighborhood, and the Zoning Code did
not address at what point a "story" was not a "story". They considered it to be
a roofed area and it was enclosed. The plan was modified by Mr. Landau and the
end modification eliminated the floor area in the structure, but'there would be
joists and no ladder would lead to it. In effect, it would be a tower that no-
body could stand in. Zoning then went to look at the structure located in a tract
of one-story houses, since they often received complaints on people building a
two-story, even when it was legitimate. It was thus felt the matter should go to
the Planning Commission for clarification as to whether or not they agreed with
staff that potentially, the structure could constitute a third story. The Plan-
ning Commission agreed it could be a third story, and so directed the Code be
amended to clarify the definition of a "story".
78-323
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Landau maintained that the resolution was ambiguous and if a similar circum-
stance could again arise as suggested by Miss Santalahti, it should be clarified
precisely as to what the measurements contained therein applied to, and where they
were measured from, because presently, not enough information was contained in the
resolution to be able to enforce it.
Miss Santalahti stated that Mr. Landau was talking about the Building Code, which
was different from that of Zoning, the latter being more restrictive, and the more
restrictive one taking precedence.
The Mayor questioned how the matter could be clarified legally.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the change was intended merely to clarify existing
wording in the Code, and if Council so directed, his office would prepare an
amendment to the Code to include additional data that would make it more clear.
The resolution was one initiated and approved by the Planning Commission.
Miss Santalahti stated it was a matter of whether the Council considered the
proposal to be within the Code as currently stated.
Councilman Seymour did not view the process as being complicated, and as long
as the neighbors were not concerned, the Council should find a solution to the
dilemma. He then elaborated upon some of the problems that could occur if a
similar structure was proposed in Anaheim Hills or Santa Ana Canyon relative to
the reaction those residents would have. Thus, staff did point to a serious
potential problem.
In order to solve Mr. Landau's immediate problem, Councilman Seymour recommended
that he obtain something in writing from his three adjacent neighbors, stating that
they had no objection to the structure. The Council could then define the Code
today to fit Mr. Landau's needs before it was properly amended. The Code could
then be amended so as to clarify it for the future.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed for the Mayor that such action could be taken and
it would not have to come back to the Council, but only through the Planning
Department. The motion could state that the Council approved the present wording
of the Zoning Code to apply to the subject structure with the stipulation that
approval be contingent upon three letters being received from adjacent neighbors;
Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that the neighbor directly across the street also
be included.
Councilman Seymour moved to approve the present wording of the Zoning Code to
apply to the structure under consideration with the stipulation that final approval
be contingent upon receipt of letters from the three adjacent neighbors and the
one directly across the street, indicating they have no objection to the structure.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney
was directed to amend the current Zoning Code relative to the definition of "story"
for purposes of clarification. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
78-334
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 145 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R~PORT NO. 212 AND
A NEW CIRCULATION ELEMENT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Council-
man Seymour, the date, time and place of the public hearing for General Plan Amend-
ment No. 145, Environmental Impact Report and a New Circulation Element, was set for
April 18, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Multipurpose Room of the Central Library,
500 West Broadway. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3839 AND 3840: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3839
and 3840 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 3839: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
18.03.070 AND 18.03.080 OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.03 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO ZONING. (To allow
individual Council Members to initiate review of Planning Commission decisions on
reclassifications, conditional use permits and variances)
ORDINANCE NO. 3840: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(86), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3839 and 3849 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3841 THROUGH 3843: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3841
through 3843, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3841: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-55(11), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3842: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-65, RS-5000, Tract No. 9960)
ORDINANCE NO. 3843: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-14, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3841 through 3843 both inclusive duly passed
and adopted. ' '
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (2:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Kott. (3:00 P.M.)
78-3~5
~ity Hall, ~aaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-15A: In accordance with the application
filed by the Director of Public Works, public hearing was held on a proposed
abandonment of a portion of the north/south alley that lies between Lincoln
Avenue and Broadway, and also between Anaheim Boulevard and Claudina Street
pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-148, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin,
and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated February 16, 1978, was submitted recommending
approval of the abandonment.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-179 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 77-15A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (77-15A,
north/south alley lying between Lincoln Avenue and Broadway, and also between
Anaheim Boulevard and Claudina Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-179 duly passed and adopted.
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - FOURTH YEAR
APPLICATION: To obtain the views and preferences of residents on the proposed
application for fourth-year Community Development Block Grant activitites.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the Council
on the staff report dated March 14, 1978, referring to and recommending approval
of the attached Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fourth-year application--
Fiscal Year 1978-79 (both on file in the City Clerk's office) pursuant to Title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977.
Kate Kocher, Community Development Specialist, then briefly summarized the comments
and modifications made in the document submitted and explained in the March 14, 1978
report. The most prominent difference occurred in the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP)
tables resulting from new data given by SCAG which they had not received before the
application was submitted for A-95 Review. Ms. Kocher verbally explained the modifi-
cations which were a part of the report. In closing, she referred to a reduction by
HUD of $17,000 in the fourth-year entitlement, and since their program was completely
defined for the year, recommended that the $17,000 be taken from the Contingency Fund
leaving a total of $83,000 in that fund.
78-336
.~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Priest explained that the $17,000 referred to was an administrative calculation
on the part of HUD. Although he had no reason as to why it occurred, traditionally
the original figure given to them by HUD for budget purposes was adjusted, sometimes
upward, and sometimes downward. In this case, it was adjusted downward.
Councilman Roth asked for clarification on the statement made relative to what SCAG
asked be changed in the application.
Ms. Kocher stated that the 1977 Housing Allocation Model from SCAG, which basically
was their HAP data based on information obtained from the census, was received
late, and after the application had been submitted for A-95 review. Other comments
and suggestions SCAG made were listed on page 44 of the application, some of which
were answered by the Community Development Department on page 42 of the application.
However, no substantive changes were involved relative to SCAG's comments/recommenda-
tions.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that recommendations made by SCAG were not their
rules and regulations, but those of HUD and the Federal government.
Mr. Priest pointed out that an additional item to be incorporated in the application
was the fact that the State offered any assistance they could give in .order to move
the City's rehabilitation program more rapidly, and Community Development would seek
that technical assistance from them. Otherwise, the State also had no substantive
comments.
Mr. Priest recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the
City Manager to execute and file the Fourth Year Community Development Block Grant
Application with HUD.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard relative to the subject Fourth Year
CDBG Application; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Supplements to Environmental Impact Report Nos. 140 and 170 were previously certified.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-180 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 14, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Development.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN APPLICATION FOR
A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP-
MENT ACT OF 1977. (Fourth Year)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-180 duly passed and adopted.
78-337
.City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10223: Submitted by Easter Island, Ltd.,
to establish a proposed RS-7200 zoned, 6-lot subdivision on property located
on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Pinney Drive and a request
for approval of specimen trees.
The City Planning Commission declared that the subject property be exempt from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the pro-
visions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and approved Tentative Tract
No. 10223, subject to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That in accordance with City Council Policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
constructed on the south property line. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation
facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway
parkway the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; and follow-
ing installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility
for maintenance of said landscaping.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final
tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions
shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's standards for private streets.
10. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim an
additional 10 feet along Santa Ana Canyon Road for street widening purposes.
12. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
78-338
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
13. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
14. That a 38-foot radius be provided at the terminus of the private cul-de-sac.
15. That a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north property
line.
16. That the owner(s) of subject property install a riding and hiking trail per
City of Anaheim Trail Specifications in the 18-foot wide parking area on the north
side of Santa Aha Canyon Road, and that the landscaping and irrigation in this
parkway be adjusted to accommodate a trail approximately 6 feet in width and sur-
faced 3 inches of decomposed granite.
17. That in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the
initial sale of residential homes in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the
seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim
General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject
tract.
18. That any specimen trees removal shall be subject to the regulations pertaining
to tree preservation in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
19. That precise development plans for the landscaping and construction of the
concrete block wall on the south property line be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission prior to any construction activities.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Seymour
on February 28, 1978, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant of applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard. No one was present.
Councilman Seymour stated it was highly unusual that the applicant was not present
since they had been notified twice. He wanted to insure that both parties to the
question be given a full and complete hearing, and thus requested that a call be
made to the proponents to clarify that, in fact, they received the City's communi-
cation.
Councilwoman Kaywood also clarified that she had first asked that a public hearing
be set when the reclassification was presented and no residents were present at
the time, although she was assured that at least three people would attend the
meeting. Her motion subsequently failed by a vote of 4 to 1.
While the City Clerk was trying to reach the developer to confirm whether or not
the previous two letters sent had been received, discussion took place as to reasons
why notification may not have reached them as well as why some of the adjacent
homeowners did not receive notification as expressed by some of the people in the
Chamber audience. The City Clerk then announced that she was informed over the
telephone by Mr. William Carr of Easter Island, Ltd. that they did receive notifi-
cation and Mr. James Kincannon was on his way to the meeting to represent the
developer on the issue.
78-329
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that as long as notification was received, he had no
objection to proceeding with the public hearing.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement
Association, Inc., first stated it was her understanding that revised plans had
been submitted, but with no changes regarding the wall. Secondly, she wanted to
ask the City Traffic Engineer some questions regarding circulation problems relating
to the proposed tract since that was a major concern. Specifically, she asked his
opinion on the access to the property and if he considered it safe.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated they recommended, as in the past, that any
entrance to properties adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road be 330 feet from the
centerline of the east-bound lanes. In this case, it was not possible because
the property did not extend that far back. A fire station was located across
the street from the property and he could foresee some problems with such close
proximity to the intersection.
Mrs. Dinndorf noted that a junior high school, grammar school, park and fire station
existed in the vicinity. Considering the subject piece of property, she could
envision the people leaving the property, making a right-turn only, would have to
go to the end of the cul-de-sac street to turn around to get back onto Santa Ana
Canyon Road. Otherwise, they would have to go through a residential neighborhood
or through the park and school property or to the access road. The elementary
school was in session year-round, and they had the only active sports park in that
area. She thus believed the proposal to be a hazard to the children. It was a
small piece of property left over from the Celestial tract because of the S.A.V.I.
Canal and difficult to develop. Although she did not know what could be put on
the property, the proposed project was not a solution, but would only create another
problem adding to those already existing for the homeowners adjacent to it. Since
children had to cross Santa Ana Canyon Road when going to school, reduced visibility
that would be caused by the project would also create an additional hazard. She
maintained it was not a very good project, and she also objected to the private
street.
Kathy Wright, 5312 Gerda Drive, located near the subject property, stated that there
were homeowners immediately abutting the property. She talked to many people in the
area and they were all opposed to the tract, not only from a safety standpoint, but
also they felt they had been slighted. All the other tracts in the area had a setback.
Thus, if this particular tract was allowed, it would preclude the scenic corridor
they were promised and it was unfair to them. Theirs was a respectable and active
neighborhood and she did not want the death of one child on her hands. One had
already occurred in their tract, and she did not want to see it~happen again.
Mary Carmel, 5250 Gerda, immediately abutting the subject property, stated that her
first objection was relative to safety. She then elaborated on some of the facts
given to them by the Planning Department when they purchased their house relative
to what was going to occur in the area. When the park was added, it brought with it
the problems of park patrons using Gerda for parking, and, as well, they did not
need an added U-turn in their neighborhood. They were also promised that the area
would remain a scenic corridor, and since they had a two-story home, the new project
would obstruct their view considerably. In concluding, she stated she also agreed
with everything thus far previously stated in opposition.
78-340
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked what she would like to see developed on the property as
an alternative.
Mrs. Carmel stated they had thought about alternatives, but the main point was
they were promised the area would remain scenic twelve years prior. The property
itself was the problem with very little access. She added further, she only became
aware of the matter when surveyors broke down her fence to get into her back yard
when they were looking for property line markers. Her property line was evidently
3 feet inside her fence, and thus the project would also affect her trees and other
improvements. She called the Santa Ana Valley Water District, but they never re-
turned her call. She then called the City Planning Department, and it was then
she was made aware that the property was up for development.
Mr. John Conroy, 5318 Gerda, immediately adjacent to the subject property, stated
it had been properly phrased that the land was a problem piece of property, and
the proposal would not solve the problem. He had no objection to people doing
what was reasonable with their own land, but he objected to the reasons outlined
as to how people would exit the property without making an illegal left turn.
It was not reasonable to assume they would make a right turn, and travel two miles
to get back to a street only 200 feet away on the left. Further, he was located
approximately l0 feet below grade from the property, and he was just told by the
Building Department that he would have to put up a retaining wall because his
slope collapsed due to the heavy rains. Thus, he did not know what would happen
to him or other property owners when a development was built above them relative
to the drainage change, since the canal presently took care of the problem. He
was not concerned about a wall being located 12 feet away from him, but what was
going to come through that wall.
In concluding, Mr. Conroy stated he also objected to the project for the reasons
previously stated by other residents, and further noted his concern over the fact
that his first notice of the meeting was the previous night in talking with his
neighbor. He also explained for Councilman Seymour that he had purchased his then
existing home two years prior, and he moved there solely because he had his preference
as to where he wanted to live, and that was in an established neighborhood with trees
already green, and a nice quiet area essentially problem free.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed the reason Mr. Conroy was not notified was
due to the fact that the communications went to the original owner; Mr. Conroy
stated he still received mail for the former owners.
Rosalyn Perrell, 119 Mod Lane, had lived at that location at the opposite end of
the proposed tract for 12 years. In February of 1977, her husband contacted the
Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, and they indicated they would be going out
of the land business, and were willing to sell the property to them. Since that
time, they had not been able to get an answer to their telephone calls or letters.
At her property, the ditch was almost equal from her fence to the ditch, and from
the ditch on to what was once State property. The ditch was not presently being
maintained by the irrigation company. She believed that the homeowners all along
that property should be given the opportunity to buy it and fence it in beyond the
ditch since it could be made into a nice area. She then elaborated upon the problems
and hazards that could be caused by the proposed tract relative to the children
walking to school.
78-341
City H~.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mrs. Perrell explained that although the develop-
ment would be built in the canal, it would not go beyond that. If one half was
filled in and the rest of the area going up towards Mod was still weeds, and
still an open canal, it would be nothing but an eyesore. As a long-time resident,
she had seen a great number of housing developments built, and the Canyon was
not now as beautiful as it could have been. The City Council had a responsibility
to the homeowners, and such developments could reduce the value of homes already
in the area in which a great deal was invested. It could hurt her personally
because her property was still useless.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what her use would be for the property if the S.A.V.I.
Company was willing to give her an opportunity to purchase the property.
Mrs. Perrell stated if they sold her the property up to the ditch, she would
install a block wall at that point if they included the right to fill in the
ditch. She believed, however, that the Flood Control District was also involved
somewhere along the line, possibly at Mod Lane, and as questioned by Councilwoman
Kaywood, she believed they had diverted the flow or they had the right to do so.
She further stated that most of the homeowners, the people below her, would be
willing to buy whatever the Irrigation Company or the City would sell them, and
they would develop the property as part of their own.
After Mrs. Perrell's presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood stated, with regard to her
comment, that the Canyon was not as pretty as it could have been, nonetheless,
it was a lot prettier than it would have been.
Mr. James Kincannon, architect for the client, stated that the matter was discussed
with staff and the Planning Commission, and they agreed to all the conditions placed
upon them. He also confirmed for Councilman Seymour that the current owner of the
property was Easter Island, Ltd.
Councilman Seymour questioned how such an irregularly shaped, almost left-over
piece of real estate came to be, and his suspicion was that the land was owned
by the original developer of the development immediately to the north. He had
little pity for a developer who had control of an entire piece of property, but
subsequently left a small piece out, and later claimed a hardship. In this
instance, he wanted to know if the hardship was self-created.
Mr. Kincannon could not clarify if that was the case, but he did not believe that
the original developer owned all of the land because the S.A.V.I. Canal was located
there. He also had no knowledge of who owned the land immediately south of the
S.A.V.I. Canal. His client purchased the property approximately two years prior,
and the canal was purchased from the S.A.V.I. Canal District.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked what they were planning to do relative to the
natural drainage on that site.
Mr. Kincannon explained that it would be filled in and homes would be located
thereon. A flood condition would not be created as suggested by Councilwoman
Kaywood because it was not a drainage canal, but instead an abandoned irrigation
canal. The drainage itself was scheduled to go into the Pinney Drive storm drain
system. They had to put in another down storm drainage catch basin system tied
into the Pinney Drive system.
78-3~2
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 21, !978, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for hillside,
low density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initial study submitted
by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse or
environmental impacts, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare
an EIR. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour moved to deny Tentative Tract No. 10223, finding (1) that the
site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (2) that
the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development;
(3) that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to
cause serious public health problems. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
149: NO PARKING SIGNS - DEL GIORGIO ROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood explained that
a month prior, she announced no parking was put into effect on Santa Ana Canyon
Road. Subsequently, she received a number of complaints that there were too many
signs which would then be in violation of the signing ordinance. The Police
Department determined that since it was an open area with high visibility, they
did not need that many signs. Thus, every other sign was going to be removed, and
she wanted to know if those signs could then be placed on the Del Giorgio Road
property where no parking signs were scheduled to be posted.
City Manager Talley indicated that could be done and the matter would be handled
accordingly.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 8:00 p.m. to the Multipurpose Room
of the Central Library at 500 West Broadway Street, for a joint public meeting
with the Public Utilities Board regarding the Sundesert Nuclear Project. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
(3:50 P.M.)
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21, 1978, 8:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth, Kott and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PUBLIC UTILITITES BOARD: Keesee, Townsend, White, Stanton,
Anderson, .Keefer and Haney
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
78-393
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21, 1978, 8:00 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom welcomed those in attendance and called the Joint
Public Meeting with the Public Utilities Board to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Kott. (8:30 P.M.)
Chairman Ken Keesee called the Public Utilities Board to order, all Board
Members being present.
175: PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD REGARDING THE SUNDESERT NUCLEAR
PROJECT: The Mayor explained that both Mr. Richard Maullin, Chairman of the State
Energy Resources Conservation Commission, and Mr. Frank DeVore, Vice President of
the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, would make a presentation relative to the
Sundesert Nuclear Project. Since Mr. Maullin had not yet arrived, with the acqui-
esence of other Council Members, Mr. DeVore proceeded with his presentation.
Mr. Frank DeVore, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, San Diego Gas and Electric
Company, first introduced Dr. Lou Bernath, Manager of their Nuclear Department,
Gary Cotton, Manager of their Sundesert Nuclear Plant, and Max Bookman, Water
Consultant. He then briefed the Council on several aspects of the Sundesert Nuclear
Project as outlined in an extensive report dated March, 1978--"Sundesert Nuclear
Project--A Report to the California Legislature" including Project testimony, descrip-
tion, need for power and conservation, generation alternatives, letters and resolu-
tions supporting its exemption, and some Energy Commission alternatives (on file in
the City Clerk's Office).
Mr. DeVore then further elaborated on some of the points contained in the report,
and stated that Sundesert was not a new prOject, having been with their company
since 1972, and Anaheim as a participant for approximately 2 years. The plant
would provide 1,950 MW of base-load energy to the southern part of California
consisting of two, 1,950 MW light water reactors, many of which were in construc-
tion today.
Mr. DeVore then showed several slides of the Sundesert Plant site located on the
border of Riverside and Imperial Counties, 16 miles southwest of Blythe which
presently was bare desert land. The particular site was chosen after reviewing
13 to 15 sites. He also elaborated upon the water supply required for cooling,
which would be acquired from the Metropolitan Water District and how, in effect,
the acquisition procedure would not decrease the quantity of water flowing in the
Colorado River downstream, but actually would improve the quality of water to those
users.
Mr. DeVore then explained their progression through the review process for nuclear
plants and touched upon the Warren-Alquist Law which brought about the creation of
the California Energy Commission. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) had proceeded
in an open planning mode on the Sundesert Plan for approximately 3 years, and then
filed with the Energy Commission in view of the Warren-Alquist Bill which they en-
dorsed. As they were proceeding to present their Notice of Intent (NOI) before the
Energy Commission, nuclear bills were passed in 1976 intended to help defeat Propo-
sition 15, proposing a moritorium on nuclear energy. Sundesert was exempted from
one of those 'bills the last day before the election, namely the underground bill,
but they were not exempted from the waste processing or waste storage bill. They
filed their NOI in 1976, and the project underwent 18 months of heavy environmental
review process, and all the participants in the project, including Anaheim, were
deeply involved in those months of hearings which generated 30,000 pages of testimony
78-344
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21~ 1978~ 8:00 P.M.
covering site suitability. The NOI proceedings also considered the economics of
the project as well as alternatives, plant safety and water. The water aspect
went through 24 months of hearings, and the EIR on water supply was actually
approved prior to the creation of the Energy Commission. Mr. DeVore further
elaborated on the water phase of the project.
He continued that on December 21, 1977, the Energy Commission issued a decision
which approved the proposed plant site, and one unit, not two, which paved the way
for filing the Application for Certificate. As members of the project, they were
now preparing the material that would go into the application and certificate so
as to file the AFC in the near future.
Mr. DeVore then briefed the Council and Public Utilities Board on Assembly Bill
1852, which they were successful in getting passed, providing the means by which
the Legislature could determine if Sundesert should be exempted from the Nuclear
Bill often called Nuclear Safety Laws. He emphasized that the laws had nothing
to do with safety because the safety of nuclear power plants was conducted, ordered
and directed by the Federal Government. Nuclear bills were a desire of the Legisla-
ture in 1976 to find some mechanism to be able to make decisions outside of the
initiative process. The bills provided there could be an exemption for Sundesert if
there was a need after reviewing all the potential alternatives. Another important
condition was that the alternatives had to be on-line at the same time Sundesert
would be operative. Their present planning indicated the first unit would be oper-
ating in 1985.
On January 25, 1978, the Energy Commission voted 4 to 1 that Sundesert not be
exempted from the Nuclear Bills and provided that there were a number of alter-
natives. On February 23, 1978, the Energy Commission presented their findings to
the Energy and Land Use Committee of the Assembly, and on March 2, 1978, Anaheim's
Project Management Team, together with many representatives of the other project
participants, presented their case in opposition to the Energy Commission's pro-
posals. Mr. DeVore then relayed the schedule of subsequent and forthcoming hearings
to be held on the matter to argue the merits of the bill which would conclude with
a vote of the Legislature on April 7, 1978.
Mr. DeVore then briefed the Council on the risk capital invested in the project by
his company of some $102 million, $30 million of which had gone into the environ-
mental review process since 1972. At the time, they needed 41 permits; this had
now escalated to 91, of which they had one relative to water.
In concluding, Mr. DeVore stated they were very optimistic and there was no doubt
but that the project would move forward. Recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion received an early site review and more recently, the Federal government
issued an EIR statement on which public hearings would be held. He stated if it
were not for the California Nuclear Bills and Regulatory Process, they could get
an early construction permit to begin earth work, road improvement and the like
by late 1978 or February of 1979. San Diego Gas and Electric, with Anaheim's
help and the help of other participants, had already overcome the social economic
studies for the community of Blythe and the problems of housing, hospitals, etc.
for the 2,500 construction workers moving into a town of 7,500 had been solved.
his action insured well in advance of initial construction, that the impact would
not be a burden on that community. Mr. DeVore was going to speak to the alternatives
78-3z5
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21, 1978~ 8:00 P.M.
to Sundesert, but noted that Mr. Maullin had arrived and suggested that he would
perhaps prefer to speak to that aspect.
Mr. Richard Maullin, Chairman, Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission, first explained the AB 1852 process and what the Energy Commission
was asked to do as well as its determination in general. He then briefed the
Council on 3 bills that were passed June of 1976, called California Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Bills, two of which dealt with the fuels and waste products coming out
of nuclear power plants. Those laws thus did not allow a final certificate for
a nuclear plant to be granted by the Energy Commission until the Energy Commission
and the Legislature made certain findings relative to the status of nuclear waste
reprocessing and disposal of radioactive waste. Essentially, the ability to repro-
cess and the capability to handle high level waste, should be approved by the relevant
authorities and demonstrated to a vast degree that the by-products coming out of
nuclear power technology could be handled in a way that would be safe, and not
impede development of additional nuclear power plants. At the same time, the Sun-
desert Nuclear Project was presented to the Energy Commission for review under the
Warren-Alquist Act.
The Commission reviewed many of the key factors, such as the need for power, relative
merit of sites, social economic impact, etc. In September of 1977, the Legislature
largely at the urging of SDG&E, passed another statute which asked the Energy Commis-
sion to make an early determination as to whether or not the findings required under
the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Statutes could be made in January of 1978. The idea was, as
Sundesert was proceeding through both Federal and State review processing, if these
determinations could be made, it was necessary to know as soon as possible so that
(1) financing of the project could continue, and (2) whether or not the project was
so necessary and of such compelling urgency that it should merit an exemption from
the Nuclear Waste Statutes. Thus, the two issues the Commission was to examine dealt
with waste management and need for the project. The Commission was also asked to
look at feasible alternatives that could be on-line in the same time frame the
energy would be required as well as the forecast of electricity and the effects of
conservation and other measures which might reduce the need. Intensive studies were
carried out at the conclusion of which on January 25, 1978, they adopted a report
restating the matter and arguing the proposition that there were feasible alternatives
to the Sundesert Plant, and thus the necessity for the exemption did not exist, re-
sulting in the recommendation that the project not be exempted from the Fuel Cycle
Statutes.
Mr. Maullin then touched upon the alternatives the Commission believed could be
accomplished to provide a sufficient amount of electricity in the mid-1980s and
beyond regardless of whether Sundesert was exempted or not: (1) a very clean
coal-fired power plant to be located in the southeast California desert along with
the continuation of aggressive conservation methods by the utilities involved in the
Sundesert Project and their customers. (2) Continuation of certain facilities
already planned, such as the Intermountain Power Project (IPP), a large coal-fired
facility which would bring electricity starting in 1987, then sequentially through
1989, providing power over a 30-year period. (3) Upgrading of existing fossil fuel
plants, such as the Silver Gate Power Plant in the SDG&E system now consisting of
4 units. (4) Increasing geothermal production. He referred to the geothermal re-
sources in Imperial County viewed as a realistic source of energy. (5) He believed
78-3&6
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21, 1978~ 8:00 P.M.
the increment of the Commission's alternate resources plan to be the most innovative.
The one they felt most feasible was the construction of a 475 MW coal-fired power
plant, using currently available clean-up technology. An analysis made subsequent
to the issuance of the report showed that 1,000 MW of coal-fired power was possible
thereby expanding the amount of power that might be available to various participants
in Sundesert.
Before concluding, Mr. Maullin elaborated upon the issue of alternative sources
which had been argued and discussed at great lengths. Mr. Maullin maintained they
had a good picture of what was feasible. In terms of the main issue as to whether
or not an exemption should be given to the existing State policy regarding nuclear
waste management, they felt enough alternatives were available to preclude a breach
of their main policy. In 1976 when laws were passed, the Federal Government informed
those who asked that waste management problems would be solved in 2 to 3 years, and
it was on the strength of that answer that many utility companies backed fuel cyle
statutes, thus working under the premise that nuclear waste management would not be
an impediment to the implementation of the nuclear power plant. Now, however, a
more candid appraisal was available, and as announced at a meeting in Washington,
D.C., the prior week, those charged with the program stated it would be 1988 or 1992
before a demonstrated facility would be available to handle nuclear waste products.
It did not mean that nuclear power plants should not be built in the United States,
but that it would be some time before the proof in demonstration called for by
California law could be made. If there was going to be 300 to 500 reactors in
existence instead of the present 65, that type of deployment was not practical
without having an adequate solution to the production of radioactive waste products.
That was the general policy question the California Nuclear Fuel Cycle Laws were
oriented to, and the Sundesert Project raised the question; the bottom line being--
should an exemption be given to one plant, and in a sense, remove the pressure of
solution to the general question. If there was something else that could be done
that was adequate relative to alternatives, then why violate a policy enacted 18
months prior by the Energy Commission? He maintained that should not be done so
long as alternatives were available.
Following Mr. Maullin's presentation, Council Members Kaywood, Kott and Roth posed
several questions to Mr. Maullin, some of which revolved around the measures the
rest of the Country was taking relative to nuclear waste, the proposed location of
a coal-fired plant, and the effect of geothermal deployment on the surrounding land
underground. Councilman Roth was particularly interested in knowing the justification
for a coal-fired plant considering the environment in California. He emphasized he
was more concerned about air pollution than nuclear waste. Additional questions
revolved around the percentage participation SDG&E had in Sundesert and the amount
already expended in the project.
Mr. Maullin first stated that the problem of nuclear waste was a national issue, and
a matter for the Federal government, but the regulation of power sources was in the
hands of the State government. Other states however, either through the Public
Utilities Commission or Legislature considered policy or had procedures similar to
those in California.
78-347
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21~ .1978~ 8:00 P.M.
Relative to the justification for a coal-fired plant, Mr. Maullin stated that the
choice before the Legislature was coping with emissions of one type of fuel or
another. With a coal plant, the main problem was air emission; in a nuclear
plant, it dealt with another type of waste having larger and more sinister elements
to control. He explained how the Commission imposed stringent hypothetical air
quality standards in certain areas of the southeastern desert stipulating the removal
of 95 percent of the sulphur, and then asked the question of how big a plant could
thus be built and where would it go. The conservative conclusion was that a 475 MW
plant could be built and the location was the Imperial Valley, but there was also a
possibility of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. He also explained that he did
not believe a coal power plant could be forced on any area. State law however would
allow for the preemption of local authority under certain specific circumstances
such as overriding public necessity. The existing resolution of the Imperial super-
visors said that they did not want any plants at all except geothermal plants ~,ich
they were anxious to have developed as soon as possible.
Mr. DeVore then spoke to the issue of ground subsidence relative to the geothermal
process. Presently, there was no known technology or facts as to whether or not
the ground would subside in Imperial Valley. Experience had shown that there was
some subsidence at the Sierra Prado Project, but they did not use the method of
reinjecting fluids back into the ground. SDG&E had the greatest commitment to
geothermal in Southern California in the Imperial Valley, and they hoped to have
a 50 MW plant on-line by 1980 that would test cycle buying and check ~such things
as subsidence. Although he felt the situation would work out properly, in his
judgment, however, that pointed to one of the problems of saying that an alternative
to nuclear power was geothermal energy by a date certain.
Mr. DeVore then briefly explained the reinjection process using-the flash steam
method. A discussion relative to water also followed with input byboth Mr. DeVore
and Mr. Maullin, which developed in a brief discussion by Mr. DeVore on the con-
tractors along the Colorado River who were disturbed that they would have to give
up some of their water for a coal plant. Mr. Maullin responded with alternatives,
one being the use of agricultural waste water, and he also touched upon the question
of transporting of coal to the plant sites via rail transportation on already existing
rail lines.
Mr. DeVore then stated for Councilman Kott that SDG&E's participation in Sundesert
was 50 percent, and they would have expended $175 million in the regulatory process
before starting construction, and the total cost to them would be $2.1 billion.
There were those who said they could not finance Sundesert, but he wished to make
the record clear that they could finance their share of the project at.normal
6 percent inflation per year. He also clarified for Councilman Kott that they
had 632,000 electric customers since he (Kott) was interested in.knowing how many
customers over which the cost could be distributed.
Public Utilities Board Member Carl Kiefer recounted the charges given the Energy
Commission, and referred to the energy alternatives.proposed such as the repowering
of Silver Gate, the expansion of Scattergood, the discussion of IPP as if it already
existed and the extensive discussion of geothermal energy which was merely in the
embryonic stage of development. Relative to Scattergood, a letter dated March 9, 1978
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21, 197.8~ 8:00 P.M.
78-348
from the Department of Water and Power, stated that Scattergood could not be ex-
panded, a final site had not yet been selected for IPP, and the Department of
Water Resources indicated they were surprised to have read that they were planning
to build a large coal-fired plant. Mr. Kiefer's major thrust, as well as that of
other cities, questioned the viability of the alternatives. There was no guarantee
that if Sundesert did not become a reality, those alternatives would be available,
and his responsibility to the Council and the people of Anaheim was to determine if
they were truly viable. Also, he saw nowhere in the data presented by the Commis-
sion the economics of comparing any of those alternatives to Sundesert. Although a
cost of $2,000 per kw was indicated for Sundesert, there was no dollar figure for
any of the alternatives.
A discussion followed in which Mr. Maullin spoke to the issues raised by Mr. Kiefer,
specifically elaborating upon the IPP and also raising the question of viability of
the Sundesert Project from a strictly financial point of view.
The following additional Public Utility Board Members then posed the below listed
queries or gave comment on the Sundesert Project:
Public Utilities Board Member Jim Townsend raised the question of the many technical
problems involved in the production of geothermal energy, especially relative to
the type of brine unique to the Imperial Valley in that it contained a large amount
of other elements that would pose difficulties in the generating equipment.
Public Utilities Board Member Wynn Anderson questioned the findings of the study
conducted between September and December 1977, by the Commission relative to the
electrical needs of the area, and how it compared with the electrical needs on their
previous study, and relative to the alternatives, that there would be a source of
electricity to meet the needs projected at the same time Sundesert would be on-line.
He also asked the approved number of nuclear sites in California.
Public Utilities Board Member Dale Stanton questioned the letter from the Department
of Water Resources stating they could build a coal-fired plant. The Director was
very surprised because they were hydro-electric people as opposed to thermal-electric
people. Mr. Maullin stated that unit would go on-line in 1986; however, there
was no site selection, plant design, a need for 90-plus permits, and presently
only l0 people were assigned to the project.
In concluding, Mr. Stanton stated as he viewed the matter, the basic problem
dealt with nuclear waste disposal, but the electorate several years prior voted
2 to 1 that the building of plants go forward in California. It was also time to
force the Federal government into moving on the issue of nuclear waste. He main-
tained that to tie up the State of California with such laws, was detrimental to it.
Both Mr. DeVore and Mr. Maullin spoke to some of the issues raised by the Public
Utilities Board. Relative to geothermal energy, Mr. DeVore stated that the problem
dealt with brine upon which he elaborated, but the real problem was the tremendous
risk involved of investing dollars before they were put into the rate base to deter-
mine whether or not the geothermal alternative would work. Thus, it was imprudent
to invest into hundreds of MWs of geothermal energy until it was known that it would
provide the energy needed. Mr. DeVore emphasized that they had also looked at com-
bined cycle plants and coal plants and did not just move in and say they were going
to build nuclear plants; the optimum would be a mix of energies. They often had a
78-3z 9
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21, 1978, 8:00 P.M.
desire to move back to Kapairowitz and develop the coal gasification project since
the mine was already there underground. He was sure Mr. Maullin would agree that
there were no coal plants available in the western United States where they could
obtain contracts, and the time frame was between 10 and 14 years to open the mines.
In the long run, he believed that coal energy from gasification was viable, and
they looked forward to developing such a source, but not in time for the need of
base load energy in the mid 1980s.
Relative to the study of electrical needs, Mr. Maullin stated that under more careful
scrutiny, the energy needs were reduced by some degree over earlier estimates, and
they also came upon the situation where the Commission's forecast accounting for
conservation turned out to be higher in the case of the City of Los Angeles. They
had much greater confidence in the forecast they used in the AB 1852 study which
they performed in the initial forecast used in the Sundesert Notice of Intent pro-
ceedings. Mr. Maullin also stated that relative to alternatives, he believed that
those suggested could be a source of electricity to meet energy needs at the same
time Sundesert would normally come on-line. Conservation alone would not take care
of the needs, but they must also be accommodated by certain new power plant additions
such as those under discussion.
Mr. Maullin then explained that relative to a coal-fired plant coming on-line in
1986, he believed the project schedule of the Department of Water Resources to be
a reasonable one. Further, it was being undertaken by the people who built the
State water project which was completed on time. He took issue with the 90-plus
permits claimed to be required because the vast majority related to minor ministerial
matters.
Mr. Maullin also agreed with the general thrust to put pressure on the Federal govern-
ment relative to the engineering requirements of a waste disposal site and waste
storage site which were two different matters, as well the geographical medium in
which it would go and techniques for encapsulating radioactive waste so that they
would not reach or get back into the biosphere. Those were the outstanding issues
in waste management. He stated it was a scandal of major proportion that in the
late 1960s and early 7Os, the Country did not invest in the resolution of the issue.
Now, there was a 100 percent increase in the waste management budget in one year's
time. It seemed incomprehensible to him that anyone could be comfortable with having
approximately 300 nuclear reactors without having an adequate waste management system
and it would be 1992 realistically before that could be accomplished.
Mr. DeVore also spoke to the matter and stated that the Federal government's intent
was to provide an interim storage site for the fuel rods at nuclear plants actually
operating until the permanent site was licensed. They believed they would have a
site licensed by 1988, and the reason they were taking their time was due to the
fact that it was going to be difficult to approve and actually go through the public
review process. Mr. DeVote continued that the Legislature knew of that when the
Nuclear Bills were being passed, and also when they exempted the plant from the
underground bill, that Sundesert would have storage capacity on-site for 10 years
past the date of its being in place, approximately 1995. That meant Sundesert would
not need any permanent waste storage for the fuel rods, thus the reprocessing bill
in the State of California was moot and could be repealed. The only bill of concern
therefore, dealt with waste storage, but the President was not going to store waste
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21~ 19782 8:00 P.M.
78-~50
in the concept of those nuclear buidings, but instead store fuel rods. It was
fair to say that by 1995, a permanent facility would be available, and it seemed
imprudent to him to lock Sundesert out, a plant which met the Federal, and in h~s
judgment, State regulatory processes because of a concern over the availability
of storage facilities for fuel rods in 1995. It was a matter of what was to be
gained from the Nuclear Bills--stop Sundesert, which everyone knew was on-line,
or was the concern relative to developing the soft energy technologies first, and
doing away with nuclear energy in the State altogether.
For clarification, Mr. Stanton asked if 10-year storage was available on-site, would
it not be conceivable to build another 10-year storage on the same site; Mr. DeVore
agreed that could be done.
Mr. Maullin stated that if there was a continuation of building temporary storage
and moving fuel rods all around, it would be a matter of whether in the final analysis
the power source would be as economical as intended. Most of the cost estimates given
assumed that waste would not be long-lived, no additional storage facilities would
be necessary on-site, and the residual energy value of the spent fuel rods would
be returned to the fuel purchaser.
Public Utilities Board Member Joseph White stated his biggest concern was with
the expenditure of funds on the project and the discrepancy in cost figures to
produce a kilowatt. Three years before, he thought it was "cheap" to generate
electricity using atomic energy, and he was amazed it was now costing as much
as coal.
Mayor Thom also raised the concern relative to cost and explained that two and
one-half years prior, the City of Anaheim passed a $150 million bond issue to get
into electrical generation and transmission to provide the electrical consumer of
Anaheim with lower cost electricity than that purchased from Southern California
Edison. He maintained that if he understood what both gentlemen spoke to of cost
per MW, the range was anywhere from $1,100 to $2,000 per MW. Thus, $150 million
would only buy the City merely a very small amount of any project. In order
to serve Anaheim's entire capacity, the City would need to expend somewhere between
$800 million and $1 billion. He had proposed that the City minimize its losses,
recover funds wherever possible, and get out of the generation business. He wanted
to know what Mr. Maullin or Mr. DeVore would advise the citizenry of Anaheim to do.
Mr. Maullin stated that was a question that could only be answered by the citizens
and elected officials of the City. However, the comparative costs of potential
future energy resources had to be considered. They looked at some of the cost
comparisons between purchased power and owning resources, and according to their
calculations of costs assigned to nuclear energy, in 1985 it would be a wash be-
tween owning and purchasing for Anaheim. It was necessary to look at the assumptions
that would underlie the future costs of purchased power, and subsequently make a
judgment for the most economic power. Several consultants that were hired, some
of which were used by Los Angeles, such as Beck and Associates and Booz, Allen,
Hamilton, concluded that they saw no tremendous advantage in owning anything.
The Mayor was concerned over the fact that Booz, Allen, Hamilton, and especially
R.W. Beck indicated there was really no savings to pass along by a municipally-owned
78-351
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21~ 1978~ 8:00 P.M.
utility to its end users, since there was no advantage between owning and purchasing.
His concern revolved around the fact that Anaheim's constituents were constantly being
promised electrical energy at 25 percent retail cost less than Edison.
Mr. Maullin stated that it was a question of how much confidence was placed in
the estimates for those resources. If the numbers were good, then purchase was
advisable, but if there was reason to doubt, the pendulum could swing the other
way.
Mr. DeVore first stated that there were great differences in cost estimates of
Sundesert between his company and the Energy Commission. Further, his company
had the continual concern of finding itself in a position where they would be
forced to buy energy from someone; thus being put in a position of buying the
highest priced energy. The Public Utilities Commission directed them during
current rate hearings, to hire a consultant relative to a debate over their numbers
in connection with their financing wherein it was determined the cost of buying
energy was not an alternative because no one was going to sell their most economic
energy. Relative to the Mayor's question of where he (DeVore) would buy 500 MW of
energy (Anaheim's present capacity) if he had $150 million to spend, he would try
to acquire the lowest cost energy possible, and if that meant acquiring ownership
in a facility, he would do so.
Further discussion then followed between Messrs. White, Maullin and DeVore relative
to Mr. White's questioning of cost estimate discrepancies given by SDG&E, $1,100 per
MW or approximately $140 million; in the Energy Commission, $2,000 per MW or approx-
imately $255 million, and R. W. Beck, $742 per MW or $233 million. Messrs. Maullin
and DeVore briefly spoke to the issue but no definitive conclusion was offered relative
to cost figures which were a subject of debate.
Councilman Seymour posed a number of questions to Mr. Maullin revolving around cost,
time frame for putting a coal-fired plant on-line compared to the nuclear plant at
San Onofre, when the last power plant came on-line in California, and why there was
reluctance of profit-oriented companies to pick up on the alternatives presented,
and related questions. Councilman Seymour specifically spoke to the San Onofre
nuclear generating plant in which Anaheim had invested $51 million which plant was
projected to come in at $1,000 per kw, however, Mr. Maullin indicated that the City
should not be in that business, but on the other hand, the numbers presented by him
on nuclear or coal ranged from $1,577 to $2,999 per kw. In that light, the $51
million investment in San Onofre looked like a good one. Mr. Maullin conceded that
it was a good investment compared to purchased power today.
A discussion then followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Maullin wherein
Councilman Seymour took issue with the fact that San Onofre started the siting pro-
cess in 1970, and it was projected to come on-line in 1981-1982, yet a coal-fired
plant could come on-line in 8 years.
Mr. Maullin first did not agree with the date stated and then elaborated on some
of the efforts which took place relative to the siting of San Onofre. He stated
it was difficult to compare a nuclear plant with a coal plant because Federal
processings were involved on the nuclear site, whereas that was not true for coal,
78-352
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 2!~ 1978~ 8:00 P.M.
thus the time frame would be less. Councilman Seymour doubted the credibility of
Mr. Maullin's statement since there was nothing concrete he could show indicating
that such a time frame could be accomplished.
Councilman Seymour spoke to the Sundesert Project from an economic standpoint
noting however that the main concern revolved around nuclear waste. Testimony
indicated that a 10-year storage capacity was available for Sundesert, and Mr.
Mmullin stated that would not be enough because it would be the year 2000 before
the Federal government would have an answer to the question of waste. The Sundesert
capacity would be good until 1995 leaving 5 plus years of concern over storage. Thus,
from an economic standpoint, he (Seymour) would consider writing off a $100 million
investment as opposed to beginning to invest into an additional 10 years of storage,
and he asked Mr. Maullin to respond.
Mr. Maullin stated the issue was not settled on a single power plant. The question
was a generic one on waste matters which State statutes were addressing. There
would be no more plants until the generic issues on waste disposal were adequately
settled, if not definitively. Councilman Seymour advised he was only addressing
the Sundesert Project. Mr. Maullin continued that he would have to perform a
calculation of the cost of additional on-site temporary storage that would be needed
and factored into the cost of providing electricity out of Sundesert, as compared to
the many alternatives.
Councilman Seymour reiterated that was why he would write off the $100 million
or find out how far that $100 million would go for additional storage.
Mr. Mauilin did not believe an appropriate comparison was being made. Whatever
it would take to add temporary storage if needed would be added to the cost of
electricity and then normalized over the 30-year life of the Sundesert Plant. A
comparison had to be made between that cost of electricity and the normalized cost
of electricity out of some alternative.
Dr. Lou Bernath, San Diego Gas and Electric, interjected that they testified in
NOI proceedings that they had examined a series of increased capacities for spent
fuel storage at Sundesert, and the additional cost was only in the order of
$800,000 to $1 million per unit to double the capacity.
Councilman Seymour surmised that the bottom line in looking at the economics
might be a question of either writing off $17 million as suggested by Mr. Maullin
instead of $100 million, or buying additional storage which, in this case, could
be provided for 170 years.
Mr. Maullin reiterated the question was not the cost of an additional couple of
years of storage at the Sundesert site, but with a system that could handle Waste
from that or other sites. The fuel cycle bills did not address the cost of a
particular plant, but laid out a condition for certifying any nuclear plant. He
reiterated, until the generic issue of waste management was satisfactorily handled,
no more final certificates would be issued for those facilities. If there was such
a compelling argument for Sundesert, then perhaps the Legislature and government
should give the exemption, but the test was whether or not there were other things
that could be done, and whether they were comparable in an economic sense. If so,
78-353
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
March 21~ 1978~ 8:00 P.M.
the exemption would not be given. He contended the issue raised by the Nuclear
Fuel Cycle Laws was being skirted. Those were the laws he had to enforce, and
that was what the meeting was about.
Councilman Seymour stated that, in his opinion, the Sundesert Project was being
"burned at the~stake"; the object being to stop all nuclear construction in the
State and perhaps the Country. Thus, one project--Sundesert--for which there
was no logical reason for restraining, was being held up, and he did not believe
that to be at all helpful for the 200,000 people he represented.
In concluding and in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood who pointed to the fact that
European companies were building plants with American technology, Mr. Maullin
stated there were governments in many states and places in the world highly con-
cerned about waste disposal problems. The question was not for those plants under
construction, but rather the many multiples of those plants projected for the future.
There was still enough uncertainty about the waste management system to raise at
least the question of whether there should be that level or rate of deployment be-
fore proceeding. He maintained if there were alternatives, then why proceed?
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to 7:30 p.m., Monday, March 27,
1978, to the Santa Ana Room of the Anaheim Convention Center for a joint meeting
with the Community Center Authority and the Anaheim Union High School District
Board. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:15 P.M.