1977/12/0677-1313
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - pecember 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DATA PROCESSING SUPERVISOR: Tug Tamaru
CI%Y ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Anniks Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
MINUTES: Approval of Minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES A~,D RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full~ of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members ur!ess, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $629,434.72, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
~23; LEASE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY - TEMPORARY SHOPPING CENTER: Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-771 for adoption, as recommended in meraorandum
dated November 30, 1977, from Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development,
approving the lease agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City
(two-year rental at $51,000 per year, conrmencing December 1, 1977). Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-771: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI. M
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LEASE WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FOR A TEMPORARY SHOPPING CENTER ON CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-771 duly passed and adopted.
77-1314
City Hall, A~ahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6. 1977, 1;..30 ~.~.
123: COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 5 - CONSTRUCTION AND INSTAI.LATION OF PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS. P~.DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA: Councilman Thom offered Resolution
No. 77R-772 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 30, 1977
from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-772: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DETERMINING CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OF BENEFIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT .
ALPHA PROJECT AREA AND DETERMINING THAT MO OTHER REASONABLE MEANS OF FINANCING
SUCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY; CONSENTING TO TfE PAYMENT
BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF THE NET COST OF CERTAIN PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS; CERTIFYING AS TO THE COMPLETION AND REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT THEREFOR BETWEEN
THE CITY AND THE AGENCY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-772 duly passed and adopted.
123: ACOUISITION OF COMPUTER'PROGRAMMING SERVICES: City Manager William Talley
referred to the recommendation made in memorandum dated November 30, 1977, from
the Director of Data Processing, Tug Tamaru, authorizing a contract with
International Management Systems Corporation for computer programming services,
terminating April 30, 1978. He also stated that one of the unsuccessful suppliers
might wish to address the Council.
Data Processing Director Tamaru explained that the project was in the current year's
budget, implementing a modern, on-line municipal finance system. He was proposing
$70,000 at this time from the $121,972 budgeted for outside services to have an
outside vendor program the batch portion of the general ledger and equipment rental
system. They called seven vendors and requested quotes and received answers from
four: VIS, Palos Verdes - $21.00--$27.00/hr. or an average of $24.00/hr; Computer-
TEK, Anaheim - $24.00/h:; TMI, Los Angeles - $22.00/hr.; International Management
Systems (IMS), Marina Del Rey - $22.00/hr.
He further explained that 3,200 manhours of time would be required between now and
April 30, 1978 to complete the program, and they were ready to implement it
immediately. International Management Systems was recommended based on the fact
that they were one of the two lowest quotes, plus the fact that the City had very
good response from them on the previous [L~FIS.-I program. Although the Data
Processing Department had the expertise to perform the service, this was an
interim project, and he preferred using an outside service, rather that City
personnel, because it was 4-month project for five people. After the five months,
the City would have the program and City staff could then maintain it.
Mr. Ted Cherep, Computer Tek Inc., 1730 La Palms Avenue, Anaheim, took exception to
the proposed resolution primarily because of the nature of the bidding. He first
77-1315
Qitv Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977,. 1:30 P,M,
met with Data Processing on October 10, 1977 and had a brief meeting with staff,
wherein it was ascertained what the City was proposing and asked if Computer Tek
had the capability to support the requirement. Computer Tek stated they had the
expertis~ and, subsequently, they were asked to submit sample contracts such as
those they had with other companies, which Mr. Cherep supplied. He, thereafter,
called the Department and was told they were not quite ready to make an award,
but were anxious to get started by the end of October. On October 26, 1977,
they (Computer Tek) sent a letter to the City stipulating their rates, which
rates were basic to all customers. The rates, however, were based o~ the workload
of only two to three people for four to six months. A subsequent call indicated
that the Data Processing Department was still behind on their specifications, but,
because they were a local firm, more favorable consideration weuld possibly be given to
them. As recently as two to three weeks prior, Mr. Cherep stated he talked to
a member of the Department once again to determine the status of the specifica-
tions and was again ~old they were still behind and nothing would take place for
awhile.
Then, much to his surprise, within the last few days, he found out a decision had
been made and the proposed award of contract was to IMS, as indicated on the agenda.
He was surprised, first, because not much consideration was given to Computer Tek,
a local firm employing local people, and secondly, no apparent checks were made on
their company and its capabilities. They had performed work for the City of Los
Angeles and Fullerton, as well as local companies including some manufacturers of
computer equipment, such as General Automation of Anaheim. Ail discussions relative
to the contract were very informal with nothing in writing -- no RFP, bidders con-
ference, or any specification to review. Thus, everything was very vague and he
was questioned why they bid on a 2- to 3-man project which now looked like a 5-man
effort for 5 months. Their fee structure was based on the longevity of the project,
which appeared now to be a larger project than they were informed. Rates were
nebulous in the complex field of computers, and a man working at $22 an hour rate
may take longer than a man working at a $24 rate. Mr. Cherep could not give an
overall price, as requested by Councilman Kott, because he did not know what the
work load consisted of.
In concluding, Mr. Cher~p clarified for the Mayor that the formal charge in this
particular case would be ambiguity in the way the bid process was conducted with
no specifications.
The Mayor, thereupon, indicated it became a subjective matter on the part of the
Data Processing Director. He would prefer to have an Anaheim firm awarded the
contract, and he suggested that Mr. Cherep might consider coming in with a lower
rate.
Mr. Cherep then asked if he quoted a $21.00 hourly fee, would that mean Computer
Tek would be awarded the contract?
The Mayor answered, as far as he was concerned, it would.
Further discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the fact that
the Computer Tek quote did not have a maximum amount; thus, it was open-ended and
others who bid did give a maximum.
The Mayor clarified that the Data Processing Director's evaluation stated an
expenditure not to exceed $70,000, $22.00 for 3,200 hours, was going to buy the
77-1316
City Ha!l, An~a~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, ~:30 P.M.
City a completed program to his (Tamaru's) satisfaction. If Mr. Cher~p was
willing to guarantee that Computer Tmk would furnish the same thing, also to
Mr. Tamaru's satisfaction, for less than $22.00 an hour, that would be acceptable.
Mr. Cherep stated that at the rate of $21.00 an hour, his company would guarantee
completion of the program within the $70,000 range.
Mr. Tamaru stated he had no objection and acknowledged that the other bidder was
present.
Mr. Gerald Plyer, President of International Management Systems Corporation, first
queried if the process taking place meant the company submitting the lowest hourly
rate would be awarded the bid. If that were so, he explained that his
company did a project for the City earlier in the year and there were a couple of
significant items that should be noted with respect to the proposed bidding situa-
tion. Mr. Plyer then pointed out some items relative to their performance which
exceeded contract requirements. He was certain that bidding could go lower between
the two companies, but he did not believe that was what the Council wanted, nor
would it be in their best interest to se~ ct a vendor on that basis. They provided
quality services and rates were ~ased on the talent provided for a certain level
of quality over a period of time. He would, thus, need to go back and analyze the
requirements before getting into a bidding ~atch at the meeting, which he reiterated
it would not be in the City's best interest. With all due respect, based on comments
made by Mr. Cherep in terms of his not recognizing the requirements of the project,
he did not know how Computer Tek could guarantee their commitment.
Councilman Roth suggested that since the complaint related to the bidding prdcedure,
the matter be continued for two weeks during which time readvertising for bids
could take place.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Plyer explained that his technical personnel
met with the City's technical personnel in a review of the requirements of the -
project, and their quotation was based on their assessment of those specifications.
Councilwoman Kaywood considered the procedure to be highly irregular and unfair,
and, as well, the Data Processing Director did originally choose and recommend
IMS. To start underbidding in public session was most unusual, plus the fact
that if the City was to get something that was not the best quality, nothing
would be gained.
Mr. Tamaru explained that both companies had an opportunity to talk with the
technical staff, and he did feel confident that either company could do the job.
Mr. Cherep stated that if IMS had an opportunity to view some specifications,
they were not afforded the same opportunity. He did agree, however, that the pro-
cedure today was highly irregular.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-773 for adoption authorizing an agree-
ment with Computer Tek, Inc. for computer programming services to terminate
April 30, 1978 at $21.00 an hour.
77-1317
City Hall, Anaheim, Califo~nia _ COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, %977, ~:30
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott proposed an amendment stipulating the
reduction in the overall contract by $3,200 ($1.00/hr. less for 3,200 hours).
The Mayor amended his proposed resolution to stipulate, not to exceed $66,800.
Councilwoman Kaywood posed additional questions to Mr. Cherep for clarification
purposes, as well as to Mr. Plyer. Mr. Plyer reiterated that it was his belief
that his company had a much better understanding of the requirements than
Computer-Tek. The data processing area was much too highly technical and he
hoped that the City Council was not making a decision on an amount of money
that would cause some ramifications that normally occurred in the data pro-
cessing industry when things were not done properly.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 77R-773: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH COMPUTER-TEK, INC., FOR
COMPUTER PROGraMMING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-773 duly passed and adopted.
153: CETA CLERICAL POSITION - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND TRAINING DIVISION: On motion
by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the one-half CETA clerical
position in'the Employee Benefits and Training Division was increased to a full-
time position, retroactive to November 17, 1977, as recommended in memorandum
dated November 23, 1977 from Personnel Director, Garry McRae. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
153: CORRECTION OF SALARY SCHEDUT.m: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
No. 77R-774 through 77R-777, both inclusive, for adoption, which resolutions were
necessary to correct clerical errors in salary schedules Refer to Resolution
Book. '
RESOLUTION ~0, 77R-7.74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY CORRECTING SALARY SCHEDULES
FOR CERTAIN CLASSES. (Lead Facilities Maintenance Worker, Lead Park Maintenance Worker
& Lead Parkway Maintenance Worker)
RESOLUTION NO, 77R-77~: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION No. 77R-706, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY CORRECTING SALARY SCHEDULES
FOR CERTAIN CLASSES. (Stenographer Clerk - Confidential)
RESOLUTION NO~ 77g-776: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-707, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY CORRECTING SALARY SCHEDULES
FOR CERTAIN CLASSES. (Electrical Engineering Assistant and Electrical Estimator)
77-1318
City Hall, An~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO, 77R-777: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY CORRECTING SALARY SCHEDULES
FOR CERTAIN CLASSES. (Civil Engineering Associate)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIl MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-774 through 77R-777, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
153: SALARY ADJUSTMENTS -- DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL I AND II: Councilman Thom
offered Resolution No. 77R-778 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
November 23, 1977 from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 77R-778: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR STAFF
AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-778 duly passed and adopted.
158: TRANSFER OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT:
Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-779 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated November 9, 1977, from Chief of Police Harold Bastrup. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 77g-779: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING
THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-779 duly passed and adopted.
139: JUVENILE COURT LAW: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-780
for adoption, as requested by the Council at the meeting of November 22 1977
Refer to Resolution Book. ' '
RESOLUTION NO 7_7.R-780: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
URGING THE GOVERNOR TO APPOINT A COMMISSION TO STUDY REVISIONS TO JUVENILE COURT
LAW.
77-1319
City Hall. Anaheim. California -....COUNCIL~MINUTES - December 5, 197.?. 1:30 P.M,
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and goth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-780 duly passed and adopted.
158: SUNSET CONSTRUCTION - ZONING FOR ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND RAMPART STREET PROPERTY:
Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry referred to letter dated December 2, 1977
from Mr. David Hook, Sunset Construction, which clarified various items stipulated to
by them as the successful bidder on the subject property and requested autho-
rization to act as the City's agent for the purpose of acquiring zoning and
applying for an environmental impact report.
The Mayor asked several questions relative to the matter, specifically, why Mr.
Hook should act as the City's agent and clari~fication of Item No. 2 and 3 of the
December 2, 1977 letter.
Mr. Lowry explained that the City was not in a proper position to apply for its
own rezoning of the property so Sunset was asked to do so. Sunset did not have
title to the property as yet, and it still belonged to the City. Under the City's
zoning rules, only the owner of the property or the agent could apply for
reclassification. It was merely a technical item.
Item 2 of the letter which referred to Item 3-d under Terms of Escrow in Sunset's
November 8, 1977 Offer to Purchase, stated they had a right to cancel the proposal
if not accepted by December 18, 1977. Mr. Lowry explained they asked that Mr. Hook
waive that right to Council, which they were doing by the December 2, 1977 letter.
Relative to Item No. 3 regarding the request that the City procure and pay for a
survey depicting net ~able acreage of the subject property, Mr. Lowry explained
that the City did not know the exact amount of property being sold, since it was
part of a 61-acre condemnation. Therefore. the City offered to pav for a record
of survey for any successful bidder on the project.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request to desig-
nate Sunset Construction, Inc. as the City's agent to apply for zoning and an EIR
on the Orangewood Avenue and Rampart Street property was approved. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
1.20: COMPLAINTS REGARDING CHICKENS, ODORS AND FLIES: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, report dated November 22, 1977 from the
Planning Department relative to complaints regarding chickens, odors and flies
at 1786 South Carnelian Street was ordered received and filed. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
105; RESIGNATION FROM HA~MAC: Councilman Roth referred to letter received from
Mr. Mike Perry resigning from HACMAC because of his move to Orange. In the
letter, he thanked the Council for the opportunity of serving the City and the
valuable experience he gained.
77-1320
~itM Hall. An~eim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M,
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the resignation
of Mr. Mike Perry from HACMAC was accepted with regret and staff was directed to
send a letter of thanks for Mr. Perry's service as the Committee's first Chairman.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED°
105: SECRETARIAL SERVICES FOR HACMAC: City Manager Talley explained that his
office was contacted earlier in the day by Mrs. Jan Hall of HACMAC who indicated
the Committee did not require secretarial services at present. He would continue
to work with the Committee and provide services, if required, and, as well, con-
tinue to work with other committees and commissions relative to their secretarial
needs and subsequently report to the Council.
123; AWARD OF CONTRACT - EOUIPMENT AND STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS AT YORBA SUBSTATION:
(Account No. 32-4803-611-52-6395) City Engineer James Maddox clarified for
Councilman Kott that the bid was advertised in the normal manner and out of seven
pick-ups, only one bid was received.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-781 for adoption awarding a contract
to the only bidder, in accordance with the recon~nendations of the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NOj 77R-781: A RESOLUTION OF T~IE CITY COUNCIL OF T}tE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM-
ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT:
EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS AT YORBA SUBSTATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 32-4803-611-52-6395. (Jenkin Construction Company, $67,178)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mmyor declared Resolution No. 77R-781 duly passed and adopted.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FOUR SUB-COMPACT PICKUPS - BID NO. 3332: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of Anaheim Toyota
was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $15,372.07, including tax,
as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated November 28, 1977.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EpUIPMENT - SIX MOTORCYCLES - BID NO, 3.~26: On motion by
Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of Harley-Davidson was
accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $12,540.72, including tax, as
recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated November 28, 1977.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: The Mayor noted
from communication dated November 22, 1977 from Mildred Campbell, Chairman of the
Community Services Board, (CSB) that Mr. A1 Hernandez was resigning from the Board
77-1321
City Hall, An_a~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6.~ 1977. 1:30 P.M.
due to a job assignment in Mexico, and Theresa Salas had not attended a meeting
for approximately three months. Both were his appointments to the Board. He,
therefore, moved to accept the resignation of Mr. Hernandez, remove Theresa Salas
and appoint Mr. Joel Klein to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Hernandez ending
June 30, 1978 and Mr. Renee Lopez to fill the unexpired term of Theresa Salas
ending June 30, 1981. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott moved to remove his appointee, Rudolfo Escalante from the
Community Services Board due to excessive absences, and appoint Mr. Norberto Mendoza
to fill the unexpired term ending June 30, 1979. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
175: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - PARTICIPATION IN THE DIEMER FILTRATION PLANT~
~SANTIAGO AOUEDUCT PROJECT (DIEMER INTERTIE~: Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director
explained that Ray Auer~ach, Water Superintendent, would make the presentatio
relative to the subject, and representatives were also present from the Municipal
Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), as well as representatives from the company
who prepared the environmental impact report.
Ray Auerbach stated the recommendation made in memorandum dated December 2, 1977
from the PUB to participate in the Dtemer Filtration Plant/Santiago Aqueduct Project
(Diemer Intertie) was based upon five to six years of study by the Water Division on
future needs for water in the Santa Aha Canyon, as well as recent input from the
City by means of the General Plan Amendment adopted in April. The Diemer Intertie
Project has become a reality, and it was approved by the Board of the Municipal
Water District of Orange County several weeks prior. Mr. Auerbach then introduced
Sandy Gaffney, Environmental Consultant, Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, Inc to make
a presentation on the. EIR. '
Ms. Gaffney referred to the final EIR report dated November 14, 1977 submitted to
each Council Member, which she explained complied with the requirements of CEQA;
providing a p=oject description, existing environmental conditions, primary and
secondary impacts and mitigation measures, alternatives to the proposed project,
topical issues, and comments received during the review phases. (on file in the
City Clerk's Office)
In summary, the Board of Directors of MWDOC did review the EIR, and on November 14,
1977, they certified that it did comply with CEQA State Guidelines and the guide-
lines adopted by MWDOC, and a Notice of Determination was filed with the State
Clearing House and the County of Orange.
Councilman Roth asked if the project affected the Walnut Canyon Reservoir and
where the main source would tie into Anaheim.
Mr. Auerbach stated the project would not directly affect Walnut Canyon Reservoir, since
there would be a s~parate line from the Diemer Plant to the southeast portion of
the County. It would be an additional source to the Canyon area supplementing
water now obtained from the reserVoir and filtration plant. The capacity, at
present, from the plant was 22 cubic feet per second, and the City would reach the
needs of 22 cubic feet per second by 1980. The connection would be at Santa Aha
Canyon Road and Imperial Highway to the Diemer Intertie which would then inter-
connect with the City's other transmission facilities in the Canyon.
77-1322
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 ~.M,
Councilman Kott wanted clarification as to Mr. Auerbach's comments relative to
meeting future needs and if he was discussing expansion to the Riverside County
line.
Mr. Auerbach stated the City's needs were based to the year 2,000 or the ultimate
growth of the Canyon area based upon the General Plan that was adopted, which he
believed considered the area out to the Riverside County line. Generally, develop-
ment stopped before that area and mostly rugged terrain was involved with little
development pasYc Coal Canyon.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the project were not implemented, would the City be
able to serve the water needs of the Canyon for those people living there at
present, and for those projects already approved.
Mr. Auerbach stated that, depending upon what was meant by '~approved", he believed
the answer should be "yes". They were very close to meeting those needs with pre-
sent capacity up until approximately 1980, assuming some other t~ings were done,
such as building more storage out in the area. In the eastern area of Anaheim Hills
not presently graded or developed, Mr. Auerbach stated they would not be able to
serve that area without the proposed project, nor the area of the Bauer and the
Wallace Ranch, or the needs of the people they were talking to at present about
development.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, beyond 1980 would the City be able to serve those who
would already be there?
Mr. Auerbach stated they would be able to serve all those people now living there
and all developments under construction. Those developments presently with
approved grading plans but without grading having started would be borderline,
because those were projected for development in approximately two years.
Thus, Councilwoman Kaywood presumed it would be safe to say that without an
additional source of water supply, it would be questionable whether the City could
provide service beyond 1980. A great many developments had been approved but were
not yet in the framing stage, and those approved were certain to be built. However,
a problem would result if they could not be served.
Mr. Auerbach answered that the City could not serve any additional development
beyond 1980. Anything approved now, and by that he meant tentative tract maps and
grading plans, and built within the next two years could be provided with service.
with existing facilities.
The Mayor asked for clarification that the project would be built whether or not
the City participated.
Mr. Auerbach explained the project would be built even if the City did not partici-
pate, but consequently the City would not have the means to get capacity in it
because there would be no means to connect to the line. The City's participation
would represent approximately 30 cubic feet per second out of approximately 343,
which was a little less than 10% of the whole project. It would be built, assum-
ing enough agencies participated to commit to over 240 CFS.
77-1323
0ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, .~:~0 P.M,
Councilman Kott asked if, for example, in ten years the City wanted to participate,
could it be tied into the line?
Mr. Auerbach explained it would not be possible because the project would be sized
according to the participation of other agencies who would contribute to construc-
tion costs and pay for their capacity. If Anaheim participated, it would be one
size; if not, the size would be reduced, capacity would be less, and the City could
not get water from it unless another agency decided to relinquish their capacity,
which was not a likely possibility.
Mr. Hoyt pointed out, as published on the agenda, it was contemplated taking the
recon~ended action by resolution. However, the Board's subsequent recommendation
as a result of his (Hoyt's) recommendation to them was that it be done by motion,
because minor changes would undoubtedly take place in the agreements during the
course of approval by the various agencies. After attempting to ascertain what
these would be, it was decided as follows: a change in 10% of the City's capital
cost going in; pipeline capacity decreased by approximately 10%, meaning the
City's commitment should not exceed $3 million dollars of the initial project
construction cost; pipeline capacity extending beyond 309 CFS. If any of these
changes occurred, then Anaheim would not execute the agreement but, instead, he would
bring it back to the Council.
MOTIQN: Councilman Roth moved to certify as having reviewed and considered the
information contained in the EIR prepared by MWDOC (lead agency). Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
Councilman Kott explained, in gleaning what he could out of the proposed project,
the cost seemed to have changed considerably from $2,100,000 to $2,600,000 with a
question as to the possibility of holding it to that figure. It appeared it was a
matter of $3 million dollars that the users or taxpayers would have to contribute
now. If the project was for future development in the Canyon area, then the
people doing the developing and building should pay the cost, not the people who
already had the water. It was on this basis he moved that the request for partici-
patroon in the Diemer Filtration Plant/Santiago Aqueduct Intertie Project (Diemer
Intertie) be denied. Councilman Thom secondmd the motion. The motion failed to
carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
Councilman Roth moved that the matter be continued one week for full Council action.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded-the motion. The motion failed to carry by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
Assistant City Attorney Lowry stated the matter would automatically be held over.
77-1324
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The Mmyor stated he was basically opposed for the same reasons articulated by
Councilman Kott, plus the project would be encouraging growth the City could no
longer accommodate with its present finmncial capability. He refused to
put an additional burden on the people of Anaheim to accommodate a few developers
in the Canyon,and he would not vote favorably on the proposition.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: Application by Tustin High
School Band and Drill Team to paint house numbers on street curbs, November 26,
through December 26, 1977.
The Mayor stated he did not want to pre-empt any Anaheim group from conducting
the same project, and he, therefore, wanted to first ascertain if any City organi-
zation was anticipatin~ such a project. He preferred to encourage local groups.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the application for
Solicitation of Charity Funds by the Tustin High School Band and Drill Team was
continued one week, and the City Manager directed to call the local high school
districts to ascertain whether or not they were planning the same project
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
1~4: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 144: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Roth, Tuesday, December 20, 1977, at 3:00 P.M. was set as the date
and time for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 144. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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 Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sus-
tained during placement of a sprinkler system on Mohler Drive by a City contractor
on or about October 25, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Karen Miller for monetary damages purportedly sustained as
a result of broken window cause by a dropped pole on or about November 2, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Patrick B. Cotter for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of power failure on orabout November 5, 1977.
do Claim submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc. for damages purportedly sustained by
water line failure on or about August 30, 1977.
e. Claim submitted by Aetna Life & Casualty for property damages purportedly
sustained by a downed power line on the Riverside Freeway on or about August 20, 1977 ........
f. Claim submitted by Agricultural Applications, Inc., for property damages purport-
edly sustained by a downed power line on the Riverside Freeway on or about August 20,
1977.
g. Claim submitted by Edward G. Encinias for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of action by the Anaheim Police on or about October 30, 1977.
77-1325
City Hall, An~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
2, CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105 : Library Board - Minutes of September 28 and October 17, 1977.
b. 105 : Project Area Committee - Minutes of November 7, 1977.
c. 140 : Monthly report for October, 1977 - Public Library.
d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of November 16, 1977.
3. 108: APPLICATION: The following applica~i~n was approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit to allow twelve football tables and approximately
twelve pinball machines at Hot Foot's Sport Center, 3156~ and 3158 West Lincoln
Avenue. (Jack Carpenter, applicant.)
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
16q: ~ORANGETHORPE PARK STREET IMPROVEMENT - CHANGE ORDER NO. ]: Councilman Kott
questioned City Engineer Maddox relative to the Change Order since it represented
a substantial increase in the contract.
Mr. Maddox then briefed the Council on his report dated November 30, 1977, which
explained the increase due to an unknown situation that was found to exist when
reconstruction of the street improvement was initiated. The money to cover the
increase would come from sewer construction and maintenance funds ($19,820.65),
and the balance from gas tax funds.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, authorization for
Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $24,975.92, Fleming Engineering, contractor was
mpproved, bringing the original contract amount to $109.§~4.42. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-782 and
77R-783 for adoption, in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certi-
fications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar
Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-782: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. ( Truswal Systems West, Inc.;
Ronald H. Field, et ux; Steven Valdez, et ux; Ronald H. Field, ex ut; Val R. Hawes)
RESOLUTION NO, 77R-783: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS.
(77-7A, public hearing set for December 27, 1977, 3:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-782 and 77R-783 duly passed and adopted.
77-1326
City Hall, An~_a~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
~50: ORDINANCE NO. 379B: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3793 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3793: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTIONS 1.04.450,
1.04.460, 1.04.470, 1.04.480 AND 1.04.490 TO TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE. (Anaheim Arts Council)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3793 duly passed and adopted.
15~ ORDINANCE NO. 3794: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3794 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANC~ NO. 3794: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTIONS 1.04.400,
1.04.410, 1.04.420, 1.04.430 AND 1.04.440 TO TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE. (Anaheim Beautiful Advisory Board)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3794 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3795: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3795 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3795: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-45, RS-HS-IO,000, Tract No.9466)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3795 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS, 3796., 3797 AND 3798: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3796,
3797 and 3798 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3796: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER
14,.32, SECTION "i~32.190 ~F.T.HE~ANAHEIM.~MU~_ICIP~L CODE RE_LATING TO PARKING. (No parking
on both sides of Kellogg ~rlve ~rom north uity limits to orangethorpe Avenue)
ORDINANCE NO, 3797: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-41, CL)
77-1327
_City Hall., An~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M,
ORDINANCE NO. 3798: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-8, RM-1200)
RECESS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott,. the Council
recessed to the time for public hearings. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED. (2:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-18 AND VARIANCE NOt 2966: Application
by Bertha Z~, Phyllis Ellen, Frank and Larry M. Hernandez for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 to construct a two-unit apartment building on property
located at 1725 East Sycamore Street with code waivers of maximum building height
and minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to ReSolution No. PC77-232, recommended
that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and, further, denied Reclassification No. 77~78-18.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-233 denied Variance
No. 2966.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. She also stated that on November 21, 1977 revised
plans were presented to the Planning Commission for a second detached single-family
dwelling unit to the rear of the existing single-family residence, instead of the
2-unit apartment originally proposed. No code waivers were requested and the
Planning Commission took no action because they did not have the benefit of citizen
input on the revised plans.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mrs. Bertha Hernandez, applicant, 1725 East Sycamore Street, submitted signatures
of neighbors (4) who were in favor of zoning for multiple usage so they could,
when they were ready, proceed to build without having to go through the same
procedure. The lots were large and taxes were high. She wanted to build a house
in the rear of the property where she and her son could live. The house, as
planned, would also look neat and be an improvement to the area.
The Mayor clarified that the request was to construct one other dwelling unit in
conjunction with the existing dwelling on the property.
Councilman Kott asked if the neighbors objected to her plan.
Mrs. Hernandez stated they did not, as evidenced by the signatures she submitted,
with one person signing twice because he owned two homes.
77-1328
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca%ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - pecember 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Bitlie Rhue McCauley, 123 Carousel, explained that she owned the property across
the street. From the notice she received, it was her understanding the request
was for a 2-unit apartment building on the rear of the subject lot.
The Mayor stated that was correct, originally, but the applicant pubsequently
had changed her request.
Miss Santalahti confirmed that a change had been requested and the modification,
no~ only involved a rezoning action to multiple-family, which would not be higher
than 1 story.
Mrs. McCauley stated the height was not the question, but the fact that the
request was turning an R-1 neighborhood into multiple dwellings. Sycamore Street
had become a very busy one since it was the thoroughfare between East Street
and State College Boulevard. She maintained it would become a very congested area
if each house on Mrs. Hernandez'side of the Street wanted to go multiple, since
they all involved big lots and the signatures submitted in favor were from that side
of the ztreet. She stated they all plan to build apartments in the back of~their
property. In closing, Mrs. McCauley also confimned that she. objected
to Mrs. Hernandez building one more house on her property. The residents wanted
to keep single dwellings in their neighborhood.
Mrs. Hernandez explained that she could understand the neighbors' feelings as to
the prospects of another five apartments. When she stated that her neighbors
would later be interested in building apartments or duplexes in their rear
yards, actually only two of them would be involved because the others had
swimming pools. At present, they were just five homes away from a duplex.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will have no
significant affect on the environment since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for a junior high school site and/or medium-denisty residential land
uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are in-
volved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore,
exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
The Mayor stated that since the applicant stipulated to another single-family
dwelling, there was not sufficient reason to deny her request in making full use
of her property, although he would be opposed to apartments. He, thereupon,
offered Resolution No. 77R~784 for adoption authorizing the preparation of the
necessary ordinance changing the zone, as requested, subject to the conditions of
the City Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that he understood the neighbors'
concern, but he did not believe the applicant's proposal to be deleterious to the
area.
Miss Santalahti also Clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the ~zoning action
would not be automatic for the adjacent homes, but each would have to come in
individually with a request for a change.
77-1329
City Hall. An_a~.~i~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6.,. 1977, 1:30 P,M,
The Mayor also confirmed for Mrs. McCauley that the action involved only the
Hernandez' property and it had nothing to do with the other properties.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-784: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (77-78-18, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-784 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-785 for adoption denying Variance
No. 2966, since the requested variance was no longer necessary due to revised
plans. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 77R-785: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2966.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-785 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2768 (REA~..VERTISED): Application by William D. and
Mathtlda Ehrle to amend"Conditio~s Nos. 3, 6 and 7 of Resolution No. 76R-95 and
to permit a free-standing sign on RS-7200 zoned property located at 838 South
State College Boulevard with code waivers of a) permitted signing; b) permitted
encroachment into required yards; and c) minimum ground clearance.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-249, recommended
that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and, further, denied Variance No. 2768, (readvertised).
The City Clerk stated that several letters of opposition to the Variance had been
received and were made a part of the record.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
77-1330
_City Rail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Gerald Bushore, agent, 548 South West Street, stated he was proposing to
purchase the property to use as an office for his real estate business for himself,
and he would not be utilizing the entire property.
Relative to the sign, he did not consider it to be big issue and was willing to
negotiate it to a different location and a different height.
Regarding the deed restrictions which extended to January 1, 1985, State College
Boulevard was now a different piece of property than when those restrictions were
made on January 1, 1955. Such restrictions were also a civil matter. In looking
at the tracts, there were many 2-story residences on the lots, which were also
against the deed restrictions. Mr. Bushore maintained the real issue was what
was happening on State College Boulevard since the deed restrictions. Ail types
of commercial property were now existing across the street; there was a shopping
center with a major market two houses to the north on the same side of the street;
and south of the property there existed only six or seven single-family houses
abutting State College. The Traffic Department should show a traffic count of
80,000 cars a day along State College, causing a considerable impact on using
the property for residential purposes.
In 1976 when the variance was first granted, the Planning Commission directed
that an Area Development Plan be initiated for the area so that by the end of
the time limitation granting the variance, the appropriate action or permitted
use of the area could be established. That had not been done and it was his
opinion it was time to do so, since the Planning Commission based their
recommendation on a study made over ten years ago. Mr. Bushore contended that a
denial of the variance would do several things to the property in question, as
well as every piece of property along the boulevard. He believed there were
extraordinary and exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or its intended use that did not apply generally to the property or class
of use in the vicinity and zone. By that, he meant property behind houses that
abutted State College. The request for the variance was necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone which would then be denied to the
property in question. He did not believe the variance would materially be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements
in the vicinity and zone which the property was located.
Mr. Bill Ehrle, applicant, 1050 Baxter Street, stated two years ago he was
granted on a 6-0 vote by the Planning Commission the use of subject property for
an office for himself, and at that time he was working with various non-profit
agencies. During that period, he allowed his CPA associate to work with him.
He had used the property as his office for the past two years, and because of
the changing nature of his business, determined it realistic to release the
property at this time. Mr. Bushore was interested in the structure because of
the conversion done to make it an attractive piece of property, as well as acknow-
ledging the fact that all of State College Boulevard was, had been, and would be
in the future a commercial street. He, therefore, went to the Planning Commission
on the adv~e of City staff for a renewal of the variance and, subsequently, found
out he did not have to do so. He realized the recent 6-0 vote against his request
by the Planning Commission was not a favorable indication to come h~ore the Council
77-1331
City Hall, Ana~eim. C~%ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977. 1:30 P.M,
to ask to have the decision reversed, but he was endeavoring to do so for several
reasons. First, the change in State College Boulevard over the years was quite
apparent. The matter of conversion to commercial was discussed to a certain
degree with the Planning Cormntssion as a viable alternative, although it was not
known if this was true. The reason this could not be confirmed was due to the
fact that an area development study had not taken place for the past ten years,
especially on the subject block, and during that time the area had changed
dramatically. He, therefore, requested a continuance of the variance as it
presently existed and the initiation of an area development study within the next
six weeks to bring to a conclusion the status of the 14 to 16 houses that abutted
State College Boulevard. He and his mother were resigned to the fact that the
outcome of the study could prove negative, Bowever, it was not fair for them or
other people who owned property there to abide by a study one decade old. It was
their right to have an updated version of what was occurring on State College
Boulevard in order to make a more intelligent decision. He reiterated his request
asking for a continuance of the variance as it now stood, as well as an update of
the area development study with a final decision to be made upon completion of the
study.
Mr. Frank Peace, 525 South Reseda, explained that he lived in the East Anaheim area
for~.12 years and was very pleased with his present location because it backed up
to Tooman's Furniture Company. He never had a robbery in his home,.whereas many
neighbors on the other streets had been broken into several times, and some within
the last 30 days. He owned property on the northeast corner of Vermont and State
College, and it had been on the market as a single-family residence for 60 days
without an offer. He was very much in favor of the request for variance and he
could not reiterate enough how much safer it was to be living by commercial
property.
The following people then spoke in opposition to the variance:
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, stated she was very concerned about any changes in
the signing ordinance because she and Bill Ehrle worked a long time to bring about
a new signing ordinance for the City. Her additional concern was the fact that a
large inventory of commercial office space was available, but that was not the case
with single.-f~nily residences. She did not want to see the integrity of a neigh-
borhood destroyed.
Mr. Marv Anderson, 849 South Reseda, and owner of one of the homes that would be
directly affected, read from a prepared statement dated December 1, 1977 (made a
part of the file) on behalf of the homeowners and residents in the subject tract,
voicing their opposition to the variance and the proposed amendments. Attached
to it was a petition containing 132 signatures of residents of the tract. Mr.
Anderson submitted both to the Council.
Mr. Ed Lewis, 889 South Reseda, also read a letter which he and his wife had written
opposing the variance. They had moved to the area with their eight children
because it was a residential area located close to schools. They did not consider
commercial use of the subject property to be of benefit to the neighborhood
because parking was not adequate~ there was ~he risk of a higher crime rate.because
of the time the office would be unoccupied~ there would be increased traffic on
Viking, Reseda and Vermont; and property values would decrease on their streets
77-1332
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30
because they would be backed up to commercially zoned property, thus making it
difficult for them to sell. As well, FHA and VA would not make loans on homes
that backed up to commercial property.
Mr. Troy Hamilton, 837 South Reseda Street, read aloud letter dated December 1,
1977 (made a part of the file) elaborating upon the reasons why he and his family
were asking that Variance No. 2768 be revoked and that no further variance be
issued which would lead in the direction of commercializing the tract.
Mr. Willie Rush, 2110 East Vermont, read from and submitted a prepared statement
dated December 1, 1977 (made a part of the file), attached to which was a petition
signed by 128 residents residing in the tract, including 17 residents who lived in
the 800 block facing State College Boulevard. The petitioners opposed the amend-
ments to the existing variance, and Mr. Rush added that among the other reasons why
they did not want the business in the neighborhood was the fact that, in their
opinion, Mr. Ehrle did not act in "good faith" when he failed to comply with the
conditions of the variance.
In sun,nation, Mr. Bushore clarified that he was the one asking for the amendment
to the variance, and not Mr. Ehrle. He was doing so because he was not the kind of
person who would violate any restrictions of the variance granted, but would abide
by them. Mr. Bushore's closing comments also included the following: he was not
aware of any such commercial inventory in the area that was comparable to the
quality, location and price of the subject property, as stated by Mrs. Dinndorf;
he reiterated he was negotiable on the sign location, size and anything else that
had to do with it, since all he needed was a small sign for identification pur-
poses; houses along State College Boulevard were not selling as residential
single-family residences because the noise level was very high. He contended there
needed to be a buffer between residents and State College. People along State
College were constantly coming before the Planning Commission and the Council
seeking variances and zone changes because their homes were no longer compatible
as residential structures. Mr. Ehrle had also deeded an easement along State
College for widening purposes, and if he had done so, it was certain the City had
also asked others to do the same and, therefore, there was an intent to widen
State College Boulevard. When widened, it would be detrimental, in time, for the
homes thereon to remain residential. Before closing, in answer to Councilman Roth,
Mr. Bushore stated that he did not have any signatures of surrounding property
owners in support of his request and he did not solicit any because he felt it should
be done on the merits of the property..
Relative to the signatures obtained in opposition, Mr. Ehrle countered that many
signed who were renters and absentee owners, and neither he nor Mr. P~gce, as
owners, had signed the petition. As well, there were signatures of people living
2 ~o 4 blocks away from State College. He also reiterated his concern that the area
had not been properly reviewed and studied by way of an Area Development Plan.
Mr. Ehrle also stated that he had not violated any of the stipulations of the
variance.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mmyor closed the public
hearing.
77-1333
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1 30 P.M.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Ehrle stated it would cost approximately
$2,500 to $3,000 to convert the house back to residential and he estimated it
would sell for approximately $65,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Mr. Bushore that most of the requests before
the Council from the residents of the area were those clamoring to change the
zoning to make ~t commercial, rather than residential, this case being a complete
reversal of that situation. In her opinion, there was no choice, therefore, but to
preserve the integrity of the residential neighborhood since the residents did not
wish it to change. She contended the original variance was issued with very clear
conditions that it be used strictly for Mr. Ehrle's own use, and not transferred to
anyone else, and she did not want to change that. If the neighborhood considered
it a good idea with the thought that maybe they, too, could rezone their homes
changing it to a commercial area, she would go along with the plan, but such was
not evident. Therefore, she would offer a resolution to deny the variance.
~VI~ONM~TA~ IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DE~TION: On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will have no
significant effect on the environment and since the Anaheim General Plan designates
the subject property for 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 environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the require-
ment to prepare an environmental impact report. Councilman Seymour was absent.
· MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-786 denying amendments to Condition
Nos. 3, 6 and 7 of Resolution No. 76R-w5 pertaining to Variance No. 2768 (readvertised).
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he was sympathetic to the problems
of single-family residences on extremely busy streets, such as State College
Boulevard, and would vote favorably on the resolution. However, he wanted to
direct the Planning Commission to evaluate the area, and in particular the subject
16 or 18 homes along State College with some possibility in the future of assembling
parcels for more organized commercial use in that area. While he would support the'
resolution, it s'hould not end there.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to include the area in question along State College
Boulevard in the next General Plan Amendment. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Thom stated he seconded the motion for one
reason--the residential integrity of State College Boulevard had been so abused
that there was none left to protect those single-family residences facing the
boulevard. He then pointed out the five block-long commercial development directly
across the street from the subject property,as well as the shopping center immediately
to the north on the same side.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained as a result of the front-on study that was done on
Magnolia just north of Ball Road 15 years ago, it was given the intent to commercia~
Since then, no action had been taken, resulting in a "slum" area. Nobody made
an attempt to put parcels together.
77-1334
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth contended there was no comparison between Magnolia and Ball Road and
State College Boulevard between Lincoln and South Street, because the demand at the
latter location was an immediate one which was not the case at the former location.
He maintained that the residents on State College were going to have to condition
themselves in years to come that they were not going to be able to continue a single-
family environment, not only because of the traffic count, but also because of the
demand and pressure of commercial use.
A vote was taken on Councilman Roth's motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 77R-786, as offered by Councilwoman
Kaywood. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-786: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2768 (READVERTISED).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-786 duly passed and adopted.
165: STREET SWEEPING: Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she received many
requests and complaints regarding the lack of street sweeping and surmised the
reason these were surfacing now was due to the fact that the new method of billing
clearly listed those charges for the first time though such charges had been in-
cluded since 1946. She did not believe that the City could continue to take one
block or one gmall area at a time and solve the problem. She, therefore, directed
staff to submit a report on the pilot study relative to the feasibility of instituting
no parking on one side or both sides of the street on certain days of the week
throughout the entire City. She conceded there would be a problem in some older
apartment areas where no parking alternatives existed. She also wanted to know
what the cost would be for such a program.
Councilman Roth was also interested in knowing the cost and further recommended
that reports be obtained from neighboring cities who had instituted a'ho parking"
program to facilitate street sweeping.
105: YOUTH COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood commended the Youth Commission and
their advisor on a recent report submitted to the Council.
ABSENCE FROM EVENING MEETING: Councilman Roth explained that he would not be present
at the scheduled night meeting this'date to discuss the widening of Santa Ana Canyon
Road since he would be attending the installation dinner of the Board of Realtors.
RECESS: Councilman Thom moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:06 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (4:09 P.M.)
77-1335
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: Councilman Thom moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. for a public meeting to
consider the proposed widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road from the present 4-lane
to 6-lane facility between Fairmont Boulevard and Imperial Highway. Councilman
Kott seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilmen Seymour and Roth. (7:00 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Roth
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
169: PUBLIC MEETING - PROPOSED WIDENING OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD: City Engineer
James Maddox referred to report dated November 1, 1977, relative to the subject,
and as a result of additional recent study, the estimated $1 million for the
proposed widening could be reduced to approximately $800,000.~ That was the only
modification to the report. He then referred to the displayed photograph with
line work superimposed thereon indicating the present right-of-way line and
another showing the proposed widening along Santa Ana Canyon Road from Imperial
Highway to Fairmont Boulevard. Below the photograph were typical sections showing
the proposed improvements to be made under the program. No right-of-way would be
required and the median would remain, but with a reduction in width to approximately
4 feet in the section from Via Cortez to Fairmont Boulevard.
Mayor Thom then asked first to hear from those who wished to speak in favor and
then those in opposition.
Mr. Horst Schor, Senior Vice-President of Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated he supported
the widening and signalization of Santa Ana Canyon Road and emphasized the signali-
zation aspects since he believed that they were needed at the present time just as
much as they would be two years in the future.
Relative to the widening, Mr. Schor presented an exhibit showing existing Santa Ana
Canyon Road conditions between Imperial Highway and Fairmont, pointing out that from
Imperial Highway, east to Solomon Drive, a 5-lane highway existed, 3-lanes westbound,
in addition to right and left turn pockets, and 2-lanes eastbound with right-turn
pockets at Via Cortez with none at Solomon, Anaheim Hills Road or Fairmont. He was
basically talking about widening the portion east of Solomon on both sides and the
partially remaining portion missing on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Mr. Schor then clarified some areas of concern which the homeowners expressed. Widen-
ing would not require taking of any land from anyone because the City had adequate
room to provide for all additional lanes and riding and hiking trails and bike lanes
on both sides; the trees in the median would not have to be removed, they would re-
main, but there would be a slight narrowing of the median to 4 feet in some areas;
approval of the request at this time by the City Council was merely to allow sub-
mittal of an application for funds to make the improvements sometime in 1979 or
1980. Since the project would compete with many others in the County, it was
possible that proper funding would not be received, but by 1979-80 there would be
a definite need for the additional travel lane and signalization of Santa Ana
77-1336
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Canyon Road. The Traffic Engineer indicated 20,000 cars were traveling daily on
the road with an increase anticipated in the future. The additional lane should
be viewed as a right-turn lane for traffic leaving Santa Aha Canyon Road, thus
alleviating congestion traffic backup without further impeding traffic.
Mr. Schor continued that it had been suggested that widening would bring the lanes
closer to, and endanger, pedestrian traffic. He maintained that was not the case
because school children and other pedestrians walked on the paved bike lane. The
project would not change that relationship because one additional lane would be
added and a new bike lane would also be added adjacent to the new paved lane.
Thus, pedestrians would still be walking next to the driving lane, except that
lane would be used for right-turn traffic, rather than fast through traffic which
would be on the innermost two lanes. At present, there was no separation between
the traffic lane and pedestrian traffic which accommodated children from Canyon
High School and E1 Rancho Junior High, and he suggested the City might consider
adding a curb and gutter for protection of the pedestrian traffic.
In closing, Mr. Schor stated that should the Council not want to approve the
project in its entirety, he recommended widening be considered between Imperial
Highway and Anaheim Hills Road because the bulk of the traffic existed in that
location.
The following people spoke in opposition to the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road:
Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc.,
131 La Paz, explained that their articles of incorporation stated the specific
and primary purposes for incorporating were to preserve the rural, suburban atmos-
phere of the Santa Ana Canyon community and to maintain the scenic beauty of that
area, which articles were dated April 26, 1971. The proposed widening of Santa Ana
Canyon Road (SACR) was not consistent with the articles of incorporation for the
following reasons: (1) noise--the noise study, as prepared by J. J. Van Houten,
dated November 1977 (Report No. 590-77 on file in the City Clerk's Office), showed
the projected widening would increase the noise to unacceptable levels in the
vicinity of Canyon High School, Solomon Drive and east to a point beyond Anaheim
Hills Road. The noise projection of CNELS was not in conformance with the noise
element of the Anaheim General Plan. (2) A hazard would be created to students
walking along the road to Canyon High School and E1 Rancho Junior High. The 45
mile per hour speed limit was not enforced and adding an additional traffic lane
could result in serious accidents. (3) The road widening would have an adverse
impact on the subject sensitive environmental area which was unique in Anaheim.
(4) The association was concerned about adjacent developments and developments in
the hills causing circulation problems. Th&y were not asking that all developments
be stopped, but they wanted first to see a "catch-up" of services before expending
funds and creating problem situations that could not be resolved.
Mrs. Dinndorf thereupon submitted a petition opposing the widening, containing 170
signatures.
Betty Callahan, 1303 Calle Durango, stated that she moved to the area from Los
Angeles to get away from the traffic and she considered widening of the road a
sad situation which would result in Santa Ana Canyon Road becoming another freeway.
77-1337
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Roland Nesmith egplained that he had lived on the southeast corner of East
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Anaheim Hills Road for 27 years and recalled in the mid
1950S, before the freeway was constructed, it was impossible to endure the noise
and traffic and now it was apparent the same traffic flow level was again being
experienced on SACR.
Mr. Nesmith stated as he understood the situation, it was ultimately planned to
accontmodate approximately 60,000 people in the hills, and unless there was some
alternative, he could not conceive of SACR accommodating that traffic increase or
turning at Imperial Highway. He stated the City should try to hold the traffic
at its present level on Santa Ana Canyon Road and not broaden it to handle addi-
tional capacity. To do so, he was of the opinion the Council would be making an
irreversible mistake.
Karyn Schonherz, 157 North Mohler Drive, explained that she was representing
herself, her family and neighborhood. The neighbors agreed with the signalization
at Imperial and Anaheim Hills Road because it would break-up the traffic and also
cut down the speed. She emphasized that truck traffic was terrible and trucks
were exiting at Weir Canyon and coming down Santa Aha Canyon Road and going down
Imperial to avoid the weigh station. If the road was widened to 6 lanes, there
would be twice as many trucks. As well, the furthest traffic lane would then be
moved 12 feet closer to the homeowners backing up to SACR which would mean moving
brand new landscaping and sprinkler systems. The sound barrier would also be that
much closer and that much less backed up against the homes. They moved to the area
for its rural atmosphere and paid a lot of money to do so and they did not want
to be sandwiched between two concrete freeways--a 6-lane Santa Ana Canyon Road
and the Riverside Freeway (Route 91). Also, the land near Solomon would require.
the installation of retaining walls if the traffic lane was widened because of the
existing sloped lots. A rural area meant no gutters and no sidewalks, butlinstalling
a retaining wall would make the area look more citified than rural.
Mr. Phillip JouJon Roche, 450 Via Vista, representing the Santa Ana Property Owners
Association, first submitted a petition containing 300 signatures opposing the
widening which signatures were from their area and adjacent tracts.
Mr. Joujon Roche then elaborated on alternatives to the widening of Santa Ana Canyon
Road. He believed that people living in hillside areas needed to share the burden
of routing traffic through the areas in order to keep traffic to its present level
in the Santa Ana Canyon since it had been designated as a scenic corridor. In
looking at a map of the Canyon, some of the alleged hillside secondaries were
really 4-lane secondary roads, specifically Nohl Ranch Road paralleling SACR which
could be used by people in the eastern part of Anaheim Hills and also serve as a
safety valve. Right now, because it was only 2 lanes, a problem was created when
following a slow vehicle. He considered the widening of Nohl Ranch Road to its
full capability to be one possible solution.
Mr. Joujon Roche explained further that eventually there would be a Weir Canyon
tie-in providing another route for those residents in the upper recesses of
Anaheim Hills to get to the freeway or for those coming from the east to get up
into Anaheim Hills without having to come to Imperial Highway and doubling back
again.
77-1338
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
In terms of local congestion at Santa Ana Canyon Road and I~perial, he suggested
a double right-turn lane going off SACR onto Imperial to alleviate morning traffic
and likewise doubling the Imperial Highway off-ramp to alleviate traffic at night.
There appeared to be enough paving at that point for another lane, but knew that
it would require State cooperation to double the ramps.
In concluding, Mr. Joujon Rouche stated that Mary Dinndorf pointed out the negatives
relative to the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road to 6 lanes, and as well, it would
make the area an asphalt jungle with attendant noise and safety problems. Such
widening would be a detriment to the environment to the Santa Ana Canyon, which
environment they all had come to enjoy.
Mr. Bill Dumper, 6188 Paseo Rio Verde, whose home backed up to SACR, spoke on his
own behalf and some of his neighbors and stated they had reservations about the
widening as projected. Working from a map of the area with the present flow of
traffic and projected flow of 50,000 to 60,000 vehicles daily, he maintained the
biggest problem was not SACR, but Imperial Highway and the freeway entrance and
exit, especially with only one lane of traffic entering the freeway system at
that location in the morning. It was his understanding in listening to NEOCCS,
that eventually the Department of Transportation proposed to make it 2 lanes, but
with the second lane being a carpool lane. As well, signalization was discussed
to allow holding of cars on the surface streets in order to achieve a certain
traffic flow on the freeway. He did not consider that doubling of the lane would
solve the congestion problem and cars would still be backed up at SACR and Imperial.
It appeared to him a 3-lane, instead of a 2-lane, parking lot would be created and
that was not an acceptable alternative. If there were alternative solutions to
the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road for servicing the people in the Canyon, such
alternatives should be thoroughly considered prior to widening the road.
Mr. Joe Cleary, 6140 Santa Ana Canyon Road, stated his biggest objection was truck
traffic, especially on Saturday morning starting at 6:00 a.m., which traffic shook
his house when it went by. He was concerned over the possibility of having trucks
in his yard if the road moved closer to his house by 12 feet.
Mr. Cleary explained that his property had the highest decibel rating on the scale,
71 db, when J. J. Van Houten took the reading. Mr. Cleary continued that he had no
problem crossing Santa Ana Canyon Road in the morning from his driveway which he
pointed out from the map. He pulled across 4 lanes with no hazard, no slowing of
traffic, and he did not consider it to be a danger. He could not see the merits of
widening the proposed 2-mile stretch of road since it would be questionable as to
what would happen with the vehicles on either end of that 2 miles. He believed a
mistake had been made years ago if the projection was that 60,000 to 70,000 people
would be living in the hills. There had to be another road because it could not be
serviced by one exit off the freeway. It would be a waste of money to widen a
2-mile section when, in fact, another freeway off-ramp was needed at the other
end.
Betty Severson, 121 South Quintana, expressed her concern relative to a possible
disaster in the area, emphasizing it would be impossible to get 28,000 cars out of
the area on one road.
John Lether, 990 South Calle Venado, stated the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road
was not going to solve the present to potential problem and the Council, instead,
needed to consider alternative routes out of the Canyon. That was the major
concern, and 'rural type areas similar to that of the Canyon had to be evaluated as
77-1339
City Hall, Aq~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
they were faced with the same problems. He then referred to the Palos Verdes area
which had a larger population than projected in the Anaheim hill and canyon area,
yet he could only recall one major arterial going through it. They maintained their
rural nature with no sidewalks, no 6-lane road and the like, all accomplished by
alternative routes. He reiterated that alternate routes should be considered.
Mr. Sam Gaylord, 283 South Del Giorgio Road, questioned figures on the average daily
traffic counts in 1973 which showed counts and even estimates up to 1980 of 8.2 to
Imperial from Fairmont and in 1975, 13.6 from Mohler Drive to Via Cortez. He wanted
to know how it grew to 28,000 in 2 years without anyone knowing about it and not
being prepared for such an increase. He noted Katella Avenue carried 28,000 vehicles
past the Convention Center and Disneyland. He was certain everyone in the audience
and the other people who moved to the canyon did so because they did not want to
live in such an atmosphere. Preferably, the most viable alternative was to widen
Nohl Ranch Road at the top which was supposed to be 4 lanes in any case. The recent
NEOCCS survey showed that the freeway was the big problem and not SACR. He suggested
if the road was to be widened in order to create an arterial for people to travel
to a possible big proposed shopping center that might end up in Weir Canyon, then
they should be told about it.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
discussion.
Councilman Kott stated that although he did not know the origin of the proposed
6-lane road, he knew the City Council had not initiated it. He assumed it was
staff in the course of doing their job and perhaps they knew of proposed shopping
centers and the like of which the Council was not aware.
Councilman Kott agreed with the idea of alternate routes since he did not consider
widening certain portions of Santa Ana Canyon Road to be the solution. He did,
however, consider the Nohl Ranch Road alternative to be a feasible one. Regarding
the truck problem, he asked the City Attorney first if there was a way of prohibiting
trucks from traveling on SACR and, if not, could the State be asked to move the
weigh station.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he did not believe trucks could be prohibited from
the highway, but he would investigate the matter through the Department of Trans-
portation.
Councilman Kott thereupon stated with the foregoing questions in mind, he would
have to oppose the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that Councilman Roth left some comments from Mike
Perry, former Chairman of HACMAC, who said that when HACMAC investigated the pro-
posal, they did not have a copy of the EIR. He had since seen the EIR and approved
of it, but felt it should go back to HACMAC for review. He favored the matter being
continued so that could be done with a decision to be made thereafter.
Councilwoman Kaywood also relayed some questions posed by Councilman Roth wherein
he asked why some people in the Canyon had been told that the widening would delete
the center divider and the trees in SACR and why others were told the widening would
cause the removal of block wail fences in their rear yards. He also commented that
Canyon Rim Road, Anaheim Hills Road, Serrano and Nohl Ranch Roads, east of Anaheim
Hills all equaled over 5 lanes in width, 2.5 in each direction, and all emptied into
Santa Ana Canyon Road.
77-1340
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Since there was no response from staff, Councilwoman Kaywood, called on Mr. Lynn *
Buffington who raised his hand to answer questions. The Mayor objected to any
further discussion since he had closed the public meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood
reminded him that never applied to Council questions before, and if the Mayor
continued his disruptive tactics she would be forced to leave the meeting and
there would be no quorum.
Mr. Lynn Buffington, 7055 Columbus Drive, presently Chairman of HACMAC, explained
there was a communication from HACMAC that was submitted to the Council relative
to the matter since the committee did consider the problem at their last meeting.
When Mr. Perry was chairman of the committee, they asked for further information
which was received and considered by them, and they had also seen the EIR.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had some questions and problems in her mind regarding
the matter and she asked for clarification by Mary Dinndorf as to her complaint
about six months prior that it took her (Dinndorf) about 20 minutes to get onto
Santa Ana Canyon Road from La Paz because it was so crowded and congested that it
was not possible to make a left turn. She was concerned because the matter at hand
was a study of whether or not to go forward relative to the widening with the possi-
bilit~y of obtaining joint funding to make the improvements. It was not imminent
but would occur within a 2-year period. Thus, she wanted Mrs. Dinndorf to confirm
that she stated Santa Ana Canyon Road was too congested at present.
Mrs. Dinndorf stated that when the east/west circulation was being discussed, she
indicated more traffic was being diverted onto Anaheim Hills Road, but she had
never stated she waited 20 minutes to get onto SACR.
Councilwoman Kaywood contended that the statement was made.
A brief discussion followed wherein Mrs. Dinndorf clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood
that at the Hill and Canyon General Planning Task Force Study, she had not voted for
"no growth" but now changed her mind and stated that there should be a catch-up of
services before continuing with the impetus of development that was supposed to
take place over a 25-year time span, that, in her opinion, was trying to be done in
5 years.
Councilwoman Kaywood did not consider that to be the case. The approved General
Plan was the unanimous decision of everyone on the Task Force, residents, developers
and other members. The compromise reached was a low density which, at final build
out, would be 60,000 to 65,000 people. Also discussed was the widening of Nohl
Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road. She thereupon asked the City Engineer if the
widening of Nohl Ranch Road had been discussed as a possibility and whether the
right-of-way was available.
Mr. Maddox explained the widening of Nohl Ranch Road was a current AHFP Project and
plans were nearly complete from Anaheim Hills Road to Imperial Highway. The plans
from Imperial to Villa Real, which was the extent of the job, would be ready approxi-
mately March or April and they would be ready to go to construction by mid-summer.
That would include the widening of Nohl Ranch Road from Anaheim Hills Road to Villa
Real to 4 lanes.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that the Council should wait until
a full Council was present before voting on the study for the proposed widening and
moved for a continuance of the matter. The motion died for lack of a second.
*(See minutes of January 3, 1978 - Page 78- )
77-1341
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor thereupon moved that widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road not be considered
and also that it not be submitted to the County of Orange for AHFP participation.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Prior to calling for the question, the Mayor stated that the pressures that
brought the question to bear were well known and there were real traffic pressures
which the residents lived with and apparently were contented to do so. He further
stated, the residents should also be aware of other pressures that now existed which,
if not stopped, would force the question back to the Council. He explained that
an item discussed earlier at the meeting today relative to the Diemer Intertie
Project proposed taking water in larger quantities out through the canyon all the
way to the County line where no developments existed at the present time. It was a
project the Council considered resulting in a split 2-2 vote with Councilman Kott
and himself opposing, and Council Members Kaywood and Roth voting in support. What
would occur if given a favorable vote when Councilman Seymour returned would result
in the residents paying some $3 million plus additional taxes or increased water
rates to run water out to arid land, thus enhancing the development potential of
that property and also accelerating its possible development. Unless they opposed
such measures, that would occur whether the residents liked it or not. Thus, he
urged the residents to start opposing such proposals at the next Council meeting
because he considered it to be a "bell weather" of another 60,000 people traveling
down the freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Unless the Council stood firm and
stated they would not participate, such consequences would be imminent. If the
Council refused to participate, it would delay the outcome longer, and the residents
would be able to enjoy another 10 to 15 years of their existing life style, other-
wise it would be lost within 3 to 5 years. He explained tha proposal was being
worked on cautiously and coming through as utility items without much fanfare, but
in essence, it was one of the biggest development potentials at the taxpayers
expense because they were being asked to "foot the bill" long before development
could start. The land was not worth that much at present but once the City cooperated
with MWDOC, the land would escalate $100 to the dollar, causing real development
pressures.
Councilwoman Kaywood made an analogy between the founding of the City of Anaheim
and the decision that had to be made at that time on buying water rights to the
Santa Ana River for $10, with the proposed participation in the Diemer Intertie.
The report indicated that relative to water, the supply would be sufficient for
those presently living in the canyon and for those developments already approved
up until 1980 only, after which it was questionable. It was a matter of having
absolutely no vision, planning or preparation for the future to deny Anaheim's con-
tinuing water needs.
Relative to her concern with Santa Ana Canyon Road, she heard from a great many
people in both directions and spent a great deal of time on the decision she made.
She was alarmed at the increase that had occurred from the beginning of the year
along Santa Ana Canyon Road, as well as the amount of building that was taking place.
If the residents decided in a year that the situation was impossible and thereafter
requested an additional lane, at that poimt in time there would not perhaps be the
possibility of obtaining funding, and it would be another 5 years before the matter
could be broached again. The amounts involved were large, and without County joint
funding, it would be a matter of the City providing all the funds for the widening,
which funds were not available. Joint funding with the County was a more viable
alternative. It was a matter of foresight as to what was going to make peoples'
lives easier or more congested. Although it was a very difficult situation, she
would favor the study to ascertain whether the funding would be granted and at
that point determine the traffic count to see then whether the residents wanted
the widening.
77-]342
City Hali~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated that water was not the question tonight, but he did agree
with the Mayor's assessment and took issue with Councilwoman Kaywood's analogy
because at the outset the founding fathers had to have water to exist. The
matter discussed earlier today presented a situation where people who now had water
would have to pay for the capacity to provide water for somebody else. It
was not proper to subject the citizens of Anaheim to pay for someone else in the
future, particularly developers, realtors, builders and the like. They should
pay for it themselves because they were doing the developing.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that would not be known until 1980.
Councilman Kott stated he did not glean from today's presentation that a crisis
was coming, and in concluding, he also directed a comment to staff that if the
motion made earlier had passed, it was not a closed-end motion, whereas the
resolution had a $3 million maximum.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and'carried by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Roth
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
Anaheim City Council adjourned to Thursday, December 8, 1977, 1:00 P.M. Council
Members Seymour and Roth absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment: 8:05 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1977, 1:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
The City Clerk called the adjourned regular meeting to order and adjourned same
for lack of quorum to the next regularly scheduled meeting, Decembec 13, 1977, there
being no business to come before the Council this date.
Adjourned; 1:01 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS,~-CITY CLERK