1980/04/0180-339
City ~_all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest
CITY LIBRARIAN: William Griffith
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL: Garth Menges
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order and welcomed
those in attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Sister Rita Carroll, St. Anthony Claret Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was adopted
by the City Council on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Soroptomist
International of Anaheim, and Mrs. Lucy Smeltzer, President, accepted the
resolution.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings
held October 23 and December 4, 1979. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Council-
man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $282,061.54 for the period
ending March 21, 1980 and $976,207.83 for the period ending March 28, 1980, in
accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
158/174: ACqqIS~T~gN OF REAL PROPERTY - LOT 8 - GRESSWELL SUBDIVISION: Council-
woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-126 for adoption, as recommended in memo-
random dated MarCh 24, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm
Priest, authorizing an agreement for acquisition of Lot 8 of the Gresswell Sub-
division in the amount of $72,000, to recycle for new construction as part of
the CDBG Program. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-340
City Hall~... Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-126: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL
PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBER~:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-126 duly passed and adopted.
123/174: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENTS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, a Residential Rental Agreement for 1040 and 1042
North Patt Street and for 328 and 328½ Julianna Street, which properties have
been acquired by the City through their CDBG Program, was approved, as rec-
o~nended by the Executive Director of Community Development in his memorandum
dated March 6, 1980. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE EIGHT MONTHS ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 1980:
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Monthly Financial
Statement for the eight months ended February 29, 1980 was ordered received
and filed, as recommended in memorandum dated March 26, 1980, from Assistant
Director of Finance Erwin B. Bornstein. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
153: AFFIMATIVE ACTION YEAR END REPORT: The 1979 Affirmative Action Year End
Report, in accordance with Resolution No. 79R-462, was submitted.
City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated March 12, 1980
from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. He pointed out that there had been a
diminishment in the total Anaheim work force composition and a substantial number
of employees reduced from 1978 to the 1979 actual. In some categories, the number
of minorities or females in absolute numbers had be~n diminished, but the percen-
tages were better than last year. One of the occurrences in reducing the work
force was, the people hired last would be the first~.to go. The more recent the
commitment to Affirmative Action, the more likely ~bat was to occur. Also noted
on page 2 were the 1979 achievements of which they were extremely proud, and
they looked forward in 1980 to continuing a very dedicated effort under the
direction of the City Council to be a leader in Orange County in this field.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the 1979 Affir-
mative Action Year End Report, in accordance with Resolution No. 79R-462, was
ordered received and filed. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CARBON CREEK BIKEWAY TRAIL MODIFICATION: Councilman Bay noted in the
staff report dated March 24, 1980 from the City Engineer that the estimated
cost for Phase I of the bike trail was $180,000. He assumed, therefore, that
it covered a greater distance than from the Brookhurst Community Center to
Savanna High School.
80-341
.~ity Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that was perhaps all they were going to
get for $180,000. They had to construct protective fencing all along the off-
site bike trail in order to protect people from the flying golf balls as the
trail passed by the driving range and along the parking lot.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was very pleased about the bike trails and
they ought to encourage safe off-street bicycle paths that would be utilized
mainly by children, without the combination of automobile traffic.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposal
for plan modification of the Carbon Creek Bikeway Project by Basmaciyan-Darnell,
Inc., at a cost not to exceed $4,300 was accepted, as recommended in memorandum
dated March 24, 1980 from the City Engineer. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
150: ADULT SPORTS LEAGUE FEES AND ATHLETIC OFFICIALS FEES: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 80R-127 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
March 21, 1980 from James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, amending Resolution No. 79R-2
and authorizing an increase in the amount of $16 in adult softball league fees,
to increase the athletic officials' fees by $3 per game, and appropriating
revenue and expenses in the amount of $1320 in Program 274.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-127: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-2 RELATING TO FEES FOR CITY-WIDE PARK
AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-127 duly passed and adopted.
105/150: SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the staffing of the Anaheim Senior Citizen Commission
by the Community Services Division of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department was approved, with secretarial services being provided through existing
part-time or temporary personnel, as recommended in memorandum dated March 26, 1980
from the Deputy City Manager. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth asked that the City Manager set a date for the Commission to
get organized and to select their Chairman and Vice-Chairman, since the Seniors
who had been appointed were quite anxious to get started.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he had received many favorable comments about
the establishment of the Commission and passed those compliments to Councilman
Roth who spearheaded the drive to have such a Commission established.
152/174: DESIGNATION OF LOCAL AGENTS AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS:
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-128 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum received March 26, 1980 from Chief of Police George Tielsch, designa-
ting Frank J. Madden, Jr., Emergency Service Coordinator, as Principal Designee
80-342
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April ir 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
and Captain William J. Franklin, Police Services Commander, as Alternate Desig-
nee, as the local City agents authorized to apply for Federal Reimbursement
under the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-288). Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-128: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATING FRANK J. MADDEN, JR. EMERGENCY SERVICE COORDINATOR, AS PRINCIPAL
DESIGNEE AND CAPTAIN WILLIAM J. FRANKLIN, POLICE SERVICES COMMANDER, AS ALTERNATE
DESIGNEE, TO APPLY FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE DISASTER
RELIEF ACT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-128 duly passed and adopted.
123: BANK OFAMERIC~, FISCAL AGENT - 1980 WATER REVENUE BONDS: Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-129 for adoption, as recommended in memoran-
dum dated March 26, 1980 from City Treasurer Glenn Stewart, authorizing an
agreement with the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association
relating to the performance of services as Fiscal Agent in connection with
Water Revenue Bonds, 1980 series. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-129: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL
TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES AS FISCAL
AGENT IN CONNECTION WITH WATER REVENUE BONDS, 1980 SERIES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour ·
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-129 duly passed and adopted.
153:. DETERMINING DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION - DWIGHT E.
CLARK: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if there were any time constraints relative
to the subject that would prohibit them from continuing consideration of the
subject application one week for full Council action.
City Manager Talley answered that a one-week continuance would not cause any
problems.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, determination of
the disposition of the disability retirement application of Dwight E. Clark was
continued to April 8, 1980 for full Council consideration. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
80-343
~ity~Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
123/106: ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES~ FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF THE CONVENTION
HOTEL PROPOSALS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay,
the City Manager was authorized to execute a letter agreement in an amount not
tO exceed $2,~00 for the purpose of authorizing Economic Research Associates to
review and validate City staff's financial evaluation of the Convention Center
hotel proposals and appropriating the sum from the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay asked the remaining balance in the Council Contingency~Fund;
later in the meeting,~Mr. Talley reported the remaining balance to be $118, 495.
123: NATIONAL CSS, INC., COMPUTER TIME-SHARING SERVICES: On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an agreement was authorized with
National CSS, Inc., for computer time-sharing services on an as-needed basis in
an amount of approximately $12,000 in connection with biennial demand forecast
required by the CEC for the Common Forecasting Methodology II (CFM-III), and
authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute same, as recommended
in memorandum dated March 24, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
139: MONO LAKE - AB 2182: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-130 for
adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 24, 1980 from the Public
Utilities Board, supporting Assembly Bill 2182, establishing a five-year joint
research study on the impact of water diversions from Mono Lake. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-130: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 2182 THAT ESTABLISHES A JOINT RESEARCH STUDY ON THE
IMPACTS OF WATER DIVERSIONS FROM MONO LAKE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-130 duly passed and adopted.
123: BA/IRY AND COMPD2qY, METER READING SYSTEM E~JALUATION: Councilwoman F, ay~ood
offered Resolution No. 80R-131 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
March 24, 1980, from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, authorizing
an agreement with Barry and Company in the amount of $57,750, plus certain
r~imBur~able expenses not to exceed ~2000, to implement, in part, the recom-
mendations resulting from the evaluation of the Public Utilities Department
Meter Reading Program. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-131: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE ~TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH BARRY AND COMPANY FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH A METER READING SYSTEM EVALUATION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
80-344
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AY'ES: COIJNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-I31 duly passed and adopted.
105: LACK OF QUORUM - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood
reported on the lack of a quorum at Park and Recreation Commission meetings
for the third consecutive month. At the meeting, they discussed making the
Planning Commission member an ex-officio member and opening the Commission
up to an appointment of a third public member. She asked that the City AttOrney
draw up appropriate language for consideration.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated he would check the ordinance and bring
back a recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he would be interested in the attendance records
of the Commission for the past six months before taking any action; Council-
man Bay also expressed his interest in same.
Councilman Roth stated he was not interested in making changes and asked if a
complaint had been received from the Chairman of the Commission in writing.
Councilwomam Kaywood stated there had been a complaint from the Chairman,~but
not in writing.
Councilman Roth thereupon asked that they also obtain input from the Chaiman
of the Commission relative to the situation.
123/I40: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FULLER CONSTRUCTION--ANAHEIM HILLS BRANCH LIBRARY
SITE GRADING: .Account No.'01-904-7105--continued from the meeting of March 11,
1980.
City Manager William Talley first referred to report dated March 27, 1980 from
the City Librarian to the City Manager/City Council reco~ending that the Council
proceed with awarding the site grading contract for the library site to Fuller
Construction in the amount of $28,800 and again referred to the March 19, 1980
memo from the Fire Marshal indicating the need to keep Via Cabrillo as a
through street.
Mr. Talley stated as he now understood, the major problem before the Council
was~one that had been articulated by Anaheim Hills as to whether or not the con-
struction could be done in view of an existing easement. He further understood
in talking to the Library Department that the architect, Mr. Blurock, William
Blurock and Partners, Inc., was responsible for securing that easement and if
secured, it was his (Talley's) impression that Anaheim Hills believed that the
project should go forward as at present.
80-345
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. William Griffith, City Librarian, stated that the City Manager had summarized
the status of the situation. The road was essential from the point of view of
the Fire Marshal, the Traffic Engineer and the Library Department. On the
basis of his presentation three weeks ago (see minutes March 11, 1980), with
all due respect to Anaheim Hills, he recommended that they disregard their pro-
posed alternate plan and revert to the original concept.
Councilman Roth explained that just before coming to the Council meeting, he
received calls from citizens in the area concerned about the traffic that would
be generated on Via Cabrillo through the tract to the north of the library. He
wanted to know if, in fact, traffic would be generated that would have a harmful
effect on that tract.
Mr. Griffith answered that it would generate traffic, but he did not know if
it would have a harmful effect. Hopefully, the library would be used heavily
and if so, people would be circulating through the area and using that street.
He had spoken with the City Engineer earlier and people were using that street
now.
City Engineer William Devitt reported that the street was already partially con-
structed. Last Thursday in a 20-minute period, he observed and counted over
25 people walking down the roadway, primarily children and bicyclers on their
way to high school.
Mr. Griffith stated that the use of the street would increase, but other than
the arterials of Imperial Highway and those to the east, Via Cabrillo was the
only local street through that area.
Councilman Roth found that it would not be that great of a traffic problem for
the residents i~ the area.
Mr. Griffith stated they made every effort to communicate with the residents of
the area as to what was transpiring to give them an opportunity to' voice their
views. The alternate of not putting the street in might be worse; Councilman
Roth agreed.
Councilman Bay stated the way he read the report was that the necessary circula-
tion in that area had always been planned around Via Cabrillo being opened. A
question he had, however, revolved around the Four Corners pipeline easement
that was located across the property they were going to be grading, requiring a
waiver from that Company in order to perform the grading operation. He asked if
they had such a waiver.
Mr. Griffith stated it was his impression that they had a written release from
Four Corners, but deferred to the architect.
Mr. William Blurock explained that Four Corners was, in essence, Atlantic-
Richfield and on February 4, 1980, they had a verbal conversation with that
Company who asked that they send their schematic drawings which they did with
an accompanying letter which he read. Also, a representative of Four Corners
80-346
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1D 1980, 1:30 P.M.
contacted them on approximately March 10, 1980, stating the proposed construction
would be no problem. On March 17, 1980, Mr. John Parker from Four Corners
called and asked that final drawings be sent so that they could be approved.
That was the status as of today.
Councilman Bay stated he assumed at this point that Mr. Blurock had a written
waiver from the Company; Mr. Blurock answered that they did not have a written
waiver, but tacit approval. They could get the waiver without any problem
because Mr. Parker had approved the drawings.
Councilman Bay thereupon expressed his concern over letting a contract to do the
grading per the original plan and subsequently not getting a written waiver. He
asked the City Attorney where they would stand relative to any liability.
Mr. Blurock first stated that they had no reason to go on to the easement what-
soever with any grading at the present time. The plan would be very simple to
modify and such a modification would not affect the overall plan, the grading
contract, and the progress of the job.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the present plan did show approximately 15 feet
of fill over approximately 70 feet of the pipeline. Mr. Blurock indicated there
was no need for the building or the parking to be constructed over that easement;
Mr. Blurock confirmed that if there was any problem they simply would not do any
grading on that easement.
Mr. Griffith also confirmed that the grading plan as initially submitted called
for the site to be contoured out and for that area to have some fill on it. They
had verbal approval from Four Corners to do that, but not in writing at this
point, although they were anticipating receiving it next week. In the event
it did not come through, the grading bid and the development of the site provided
for that area not to'be filled in, and in no way would it jeopardize proceeding
with the project. The grading and site development was to be done with the
approval and under the supervision of the City Engineer.
Councilman Bay stated he was not certain that he was ready to vote to give a
grading contract today if a one week's delay would assure them that they had a
written waiver.
Mr. Griffith noted that the Council should realize that a one week's delay would
probably cause them to lose the bid, and they would then need to rebid the project.
The. contractor who bid the job was contacted and previously agreed to hold to his
bid, which was extremely favorable, until today. He (Griffith) assured the Council
that there were no problems in proceeding.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not see Councilman Bay's concern on the issue.
If the consent was not received from Four Corners, the architect represented that
the project could go forward without utilization of the easement in any event.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-I32 for adoption, awarding a contract
to Fuller Construction as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated Mmrch 4, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-347
City Hall, Anaheim, ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-132: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES,' MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER-
FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT: ANAHEIM HILLS BRANCH LIBRARY SITE GRADING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 01-904-7105. (Fuller Construction, $28,800)
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt commended staff and Mr. Salceda
from Anaheim Hills for trying to come up with an answer relative to the best way
to proceed on the project. They were appreciative as well of Mr. Griffith's efforts
during the past three weeks and that of the Library Board.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-132 duly passed and adopted.
110: POST-CENSUS REVIEW: Councilman Bay referred to memorandum dated March 28,
1980, from the City Census Coordinator, William Griffith, recommending that the
Council request Members of Congress and/or the Director of the Bureau of the
Census that the time allocated for the post-census review be extended for an
additional 60 days. ~ He requested that the word "or" be eliminated and also to
make certain their request was not only sent to the Congressmen, but also the
Director, since they arbitrarily did away with the pre-census review, leaving
the City in a very weak position to check how accurate the work was being done.
He wanted to know who made the decision to wipe out the review.
Mr. Gr±ffith reported there was an announcement from the Bureau of the Census in
Washington and the decision was made at that level by the head of the Bureau on
the grounds that the maps and other documents were not ready to turn over to the
cities. He also reported 'that several weeks ago, a Wall Street Journal article
called attention to the fact that the Census Bureau was talking about estimating
population figures. In today's Los Angeles Times, a spokeswoman alleged that
perhaps only 20% to 25% of the undocumented persons in the country would be counted
and thus discrepancies in the count were already beginning to appear. They had
hoped that the pre-count would have enabled them to have a more accurate and
complete count, but in the absence of pre-count, they felt it essential that
as expressed in a letter received March 24, 1980 from the State of California,
Office of Planning and Research, that they be granted a longer period than the
10 days presently allocated for the post-census review.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that there might be more clout in having the
League of Cities make the request; Mr. Griffith stated all they could do should
be done to get a reasonable and decent period of time to accomplish the post-
census review.
80-348
Cit~Hall, Anaheim,.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to request Congress and the Director of the Bureau
of the Census to allocate an additional 60 days for the post-census review.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
CouncilWoman Kaywood moved to request the City Attorney to draw a resolution to
be presented to the League of Cities at their April 10th meeting, requesting their
support relative to the extension of time for the subject review. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application submitted by Disneyland Park
to discharge fireworks on April 11, 1980 at 11:00 p.m. and on May 3, 10, 17, 24,
25, 31 and June 7, and from June 14 through September 6 and September 13, 1980,
at 10:00 p.m., at the Park, with a request for an exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code
time limit provision. ~
Mr. Garth Menges, Deputy Fire Marshal, stated that the original application
submitted March 31, included the dates of April 11 through September 3.;.? How-
ever, because 'of lack of data relative to the April 11 display, they ask~ that
that date be withdrawn. Yesterday~ they did conduct their test and, therefore,
he wanted to re~enter that date for approval at this time. ~
Mr. Fred Duffy, 200 Wilshire, Manager of the Entertainment Divisions Operations
at Disneyland, explained that in keeping with the scale of the celebration of
25 years of operation at Disneyland, they planned a gala evening on April 11,
the climax of which would be a spectacular fireworks show. The opening of that
would consist of a suspended set piece as indicated on the permit and in con-
cluding the show, they would be going to a regular aerial fireworks. The set
piece was a non-audible fireworks process not to be confused with the fireworks
that would follow.
Councilman Roth commended Disneyland for :aking the leadership in the fact that
they were going to be mailing letters to residents surrounding Disneyland informing
them of the extra spectacular show that would be taking place. He referred to
letter dated April 8, 1980 from Jim Garber, Director of Marketing at Disneyland,
to the residents informing them of the fireworks show that would be taking place
at 10:30 p.m. on that one night only, marking a special moment in Disneyland
history.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many letters were going to be sent; Mr. Duffy
answered that the letter would go to those zip codes where it was found that
people could step onto their front lawns and see the show, or be affected in
terms of noise.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he wanted to be certain April 11, 1980 was included
in the motion.
Councilman Bay moved to approve the application for a Public Fireworks Display
Permit submitted by Disneyland Park to discharge ficeworks on April 11, 1980,
at 11:00 p.m., and on May 3, 10, 17, 24, 25, 31 and June 7 and from June 14
through September 6 and September 13, 1980, at 10:00 p.m. at the Park, with
an exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code time limit provision. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
80-349
C.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April iD 1980, 1:30 p.M.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2566 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request
by Daniel A. Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., for an extension of time to Reclassif-
ication No. 73-74-28 and Variance No. 2566, proposed 18-lot, RS-HS-22,000 sub-
division on property located at the northeasterly corner~f Avenida Santiago
and Hidden Canyon Road and southeasterly of the intersection of Serrano Avenue
and Hidden Canyon Road, was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Salceda, who was in the Chamber audience, if the
project was going to be built; Mr. Salceda answered "yes".
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an extension of
time to Reclassification No. 73-74-28 and Variance No. 2566 was granted, to
expire March 14, 1981, as recommended in report dated March 26, 1980 from the
Assistant Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-40 AND VARIANCE NO. 2918 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request
by Kaz Katayama, Boulevard Development, for an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 76-77-40 and Variance No. 2918, proposed 30-lot, RS-HS-22,000 subdivision on
property located at the northeast corner of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont Boulevard,
was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, an extension of time
to Reclassification No. 76-77-40 and Variance No. 2918 was granted, to expire
.April 19, 1981, as recommended in report dated March 26, 1980, from the Assistant
D~rector of Zoning. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
163: REQUEST 'FOR CROSSING GUARD - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SCHOOL: On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the subject request
was continued to April 8, 1980, as requested by the petitioner. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
167: REQUEST FOR PARTIAL REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE - SUTHERLAND
LUMBER: Fee paid in connection with bid development of the property located at
5635 East La Palma Avenue.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the request for a partial refund of the traffic
signal assessment fee paid in connection with the development of the property
located at 5635 East La Paima Avenue, as reco~nended in memorandum dated March 28,
1980 from the City Engineer. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the deadline for such
requests was set for last November and no refunds were to be issued after that
time. Also, they had continuing requests for more and more traffic signals and
the assessment fund did not have enough money to take care of what they had now.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if the applicant was present; Mr. James Martin,
D~strict Manager, Sutherland Lumber, stated that ~he matter came to his attention
about a month ago, that refunds were being made, and he subsequently made applica-
tion.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he believed Councilwoman Kaywood correctly
stated that they had placed a deadline on consideration of such applications;
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer confirmed that was correct.
80-350
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
150: CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA: Request of Joel Guerena, Chairman, for use of La
Palma Park and Glover Stadium, funding in accordance with a proposed budget,
and approval of special events planned for the Fiesta on May 2, 3 and 4, 1980,
was submitted, together with reports by the City Attorney, Parks, Recreation
and Community Services and Police Departments, with the Parks and Recreation
Department recommending approval of the recreation facilities at the Park.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request in accordance with staff
recommendations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Joel Guerena, 1334 South Clairmont stated he did
not know if the skydivers they were trying to bring in were approved.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that the Police Department and Fire Department indi-
cated their approval in the documentation they had in their agenda packet; Council-
woman Kaywood inquired as to FAA approval. Mr. Guerena stated that the skydivers
did get such approval.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that one question they had asked last year was
whether it was possible for the Fiesta to become self-supporting, and she noted
they were asking for even more money this year.
Mr. Guerena stated it was very difficult for them to be self-supporting and last
year he personally lost $2,000 promoting the Fiesta, and he could not do that every
year. He reiterated, it was difficult and they would appreciate anything they
could get. They were hopeful of receiving anything in the area of $2,000.
Every year they had been getting all the trophies and programs from the Parks
and Recreation Department. This year the Department was unable to help them,
other than perhaps a $300 maximum. Further, they were going to have an additional
day of performances this year.
Councilman Roth commended Mr. Guerena for devoting as much time as he did in
putting the Fiesta together and he noted the success they had last year, which
he personally witnessed.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked Councilman Roth if his motion included the $1,500
participation by the City from the Council Contingency Fund, as was the case last
year; Councilman Roth answered "yes".
Councilman Bay stated he thought Councilman Roth's motion was per the recommendation
from the Parks and Recreation Department; Mayor Pro Tem Overholt explained that
included in that was the $1,500, in addition to the Department's recommendation.
Councilman Bay thereupon withdrew his second because that was not the way he
understood the motion. He thought the motion was that the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department was carrying $2,610 in their 1979-80 Budget which
included various and sundry things (see report March 26, 1980 from James Ruth
Deputy City Manager). Although the last paragraph on Page 1 of the report in-
dicated that the Council appropriated an additional $1,500 to the Committee for
entertainment last year, he did not understand that amount to be a part of the
motion.
80-351
City Ha.!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated his motion was in accordance with the Parks and Recreation
Department, the City Attorney and Police Department recommendations, including
the recommendation from Mr. Ruth relative to the $2,610.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he was trying to understand if the motion contem-
plated $2,610 of Parks and Recreation services, plus $1,500 from the Council
Contingency Fund or whether only the $2,610. He interpreted the recommendation
as supporting the Fiesta in the same way as last year, including the $1,500.
Mr. Guerena'indicated there might be a need for more than $1,500 and they should
also address that. He was talking about a total of $2,000 from the Council due
to the fact that the Parks and Recreation Department was going to drop the dona-
tion of all the trophies, plus all the printing, plus additional things.
Mayor Pro'Tem Overholt asked if the Department had dropped the trophies; from
the audience, a staff member answered, "no".
Mr. Guerena then stated if they had the same backing from Parks, Recreation and
Community Services as last year, there would be no problem and they could make it.
Patsy Ray, Senior Recreation Supervisor, explained that the Department presented
a budget to the Cinco de Mayo Committee about six months ago indicating what
funds were available for the current fiscal year which was the same as the last
fiscal year. She believed that Mr. Guerena might be confused about three Pro-
position 13 services that the Department was unable to provide which did in-
clude printing and a larger amount for trophies. Mr. Guerena was requesting
the $2,610 from the Department in addition to the $1,500 for entertainment,
in addition to whatever the Council might see clear to advance for the Fiesta.
She further explained that they had $300 budgeted for the trophies which was
less than two years ago. The need for trophies had increased, as well as the
cost fQr trophies due to inflation. There were now more activities because
the Fiesta was extended to a three-day event.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if on the carnival there was going to be any income
going to the DePartment.
Miss Ray stated that any income would revert to the Department to offset their
$65,000 shortfall for their overall program. It was part of their fund-raising
activity.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Guerena if he were to receive the same $1,500,
would that get them through the three-day Fiesta.
Mr. Guerena answered that it would be hard, but if they had to, they could do
it.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked for confirmation that Councilman Roth's motion
did contemplate $1,500 from the Council Contingency Fund in addition to the
budgeted services from the Parks and Recreation Department; Councilman Roth
answered "yes".
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that the Council indicated their 100% support
of the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta and they were glad to assist by giving the same
help as last year. Hopefully it would give the community the resources, along
8'0-352
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, .!980, 1:30 P.M.
with what they made in connection with the event, to have a meaningful three-day
Fiesta and they looked forward to being there.
Councilman Bay stated in addition to the budgeted $2,610, as indicated in lhe
March 26, 1980 report, the Department, "provides liaison support with the Commit-
tee; coordinates Fiesta requests with the Police Department, Facility Maintenance,
and the Parks Division; is responsible for the set-up and take-down of the Show
Wagon with dressing rooms for the entertainment; phrchasing the trophies; secur-
ing booth frames and providing supplies," etc. He wanted the Council to under-'
stand that the $2,610 was only part of the tangible support that the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department furnished to the Fiesta. He was not
in favor of adding an additional $1,500 from the Council Contingency Fund to those
expenses. He then confirmed that he had withdrawn his second.
Councilman Overholt thereupon seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the support from the Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Department was evident in the fact that the Fiesta was being
expanded to three days, and the Department was working with the Committee all
the way. That was something that they applauded and they looked forward to
that positive kind of activity in the community. She, too, would support the
$1,500 additional this time, although she did not know what they would be able
to do next year. She would have to be concerned about expanding the Fiesta
further.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay noted "no".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:10 P.M.)
170: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING- TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10807: Application by
Pacific Terrace Apartments, to establish a 348-1ot, 347-unit mobile home park
subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 5815 East La Palma Avenue
(~ontinued from meeting of December 4, 1979).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-202, stated that
an environmental impact report negative declaration was approved for the subject
project in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 on August 27, 1979,
and approved Tentative Tract No. 10807.
City Clerk Linda Roberts referred to letter dated March 28, 1980 from the applicant,
MPM Services, Inc., stating they were still working on the State Subdivision
requirements and at the present time, did not have a financial plan.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that Mr. Boyce Jones
was present. They had discussed alternatives as to whether the Council might
wish to approve, deny or continue the item. She had indicated that a continuance
to a specific date would be the most satisfactory, since the Council would then
have answers relative to the financing issues an~ the relocation in the tract,
80-353
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 19.80, 1:30 P.M.
also giving an opportunity for the rezoning action to be completed. Mr. Jones
indicated a date in July might be satisfactory to him. If the Council denies
the tentative tract without prejudice, they would have to refile the tract map
resulting in almost $600 in fees alone.
Councilman Roth stated he believed it appropriate to continue the matter. He had
to agree with Mr. Jones that the present 17 3/4% interest was out of the ballpark.
He agreed that they should continue consideration to a period of time in either
July or August, because it was worth trying to save such a pioneering concept.
Councilman Roth moved to continue public hearing on Tentative Tract No. 10807
to July 15, 1980, 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated the last time they heard the
item, they made it clear they were encouraging Mr. Jones and the applicants
to go on with the program. However, in considering the technicalities of
obtaining a tentative tract map prior to the rezoning, between now and July 15
if the intent was to come back in with a tract map on that date, he advised
strongly that Mr. Jones get the zoning change into the Planning Commission
before doing so to'avoid putting the "cart before the hprse", lie wanted to
be certain that Mr. Jones understood.
From the audience, Mr..Jones nodded his understanding.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 157 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
To consider a) an amendment to the Land Use Element for development of approx-
imately 47.7 acres bounded on the north by the Riverside Freeway, south by the
Santa Ana River, east by Tustin Avenue and west by Glassell Street, and b) an
amendment to the Circulation Element evaluating the following areas: 1) Clementine
Street between Manchester Avenue and Freedman Way (Collector to Secondary Arterial
Highway), 2) Manchester. Avenue between Clementine Street and Haster Street (delete
as a Secondary Arterial Highway), and 3) Change "Collector" designation to
"Commuter".
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-43, approved
Exhibit "A" for the Land Use Element for the 47.7 acres located south of the
Riverside Freeway and north of the Santa Ana River between Glassell Street to
the west and Tustin Avenue to the east, and Exhibit "A" for the Circulation
Element for a) Clementine Street between Manchester Avenue and Freedman Way,
b) Manchester Avenue between Clementine and Haster Street and c) changing
"Collector" designation to "Commuter" designation, and further recommended that
a negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR be approved on
the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts due to the approval the negative declaration.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report submitted to the
Planning Commission dated February 25, 1980, noting that the Land Use Element
was a property-owner initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current
General Open Space designation to General Industrial. Relative to the Circu-
lation Element, it was proposed, by this Amendment to change the current desig-
nation of the subject existing and proposed highways.
80-354
.C.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:.30 P.M.
After Mr. Tashiro presentation during which he worked from exhibits posted on
the Chamber wall, Councilman Roth referred to the area just north of the Riverside
Freeway where they had taken action to abandon Newkirk Road. He asked for clar-
ification if the only ingress to that industrial area would be from Frontera.
Mr. Tashiro answered it would basically be Frontera and Glassell. The Newkirk
abandonment would have no effect on the property. However, they would be taking
access through that vacated street.
Councilman Roth wanted to know how they could abandon the street and then start
using it again.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, explained there would be private
access ways off Frontera serving each one of the individual developments on the
parcel. The'Traffic Engineer looked at the potential traffic that would be gen-
erated as a result of the overall industrial development and its impact on both
the Frontera and Glassell Street interchange and the arterials. The Traffic
Engineer was of the opinion that the street system was adequate to handle that
traffic.
Councilman Roth specifically wanted to know what they intended to do with
Newkirk; Mr. Fick reiterated that any development upon each of the individual
parcels would be provided their own private access from Frontera Street. They
might be utilizing access in that location (Newkirk), but, if so, it would be
a private access.
Councilman Roth asked how much right of way was available off Frontera.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that they would require 52 feet of right of
way to build that collector road. The roadway dead-ended after the railroad
tracks, but they would want 52 feet for a collector street because heavy truck
traffic was anticipated.
Councilman Roth stated that was his point and considering the recycling center
that was located in the area, the street width was very narrow. He suggested
that Mr. Adams, the owner of the recylcing center, speak to the matter. If they
were talking about an industrial park on that old dump site, ingress and egress
would have to be provided to that site.
Mr. George Adams, President, Orange County Steel Salvage, stated he was completely
opposed to the reopening of Newkirk Street. They had gone to considerable expense,
time and effort to have the street abandoned by a personal agreement with the
proper~y owner at that time. The owners daughter, Holly Wade Tuzewski, who was
now the owner, had apparently seen fit to give an easement to the proposed
developers. The reason for the abandonment was clear and specific at the time.
A 70-foot scale built some 15 years ago encroached into Newkirk. Also, in light
of the fact that the street was abandoned, their building was now encroaching into
Newkirk by approximately 20 feet. The reason why they proceeded on the abandonment ~-~
was because they knew the traffic to and from the recycling center in serving
the public would be tremendous. There was a steady stream of traffic in both
directions along Newkirk and it was increasing.
80-355
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Adams to speak to the widening of Frontera.
Mr. Adams stated it would probably be adequate to handle the traffic of the
proposed development. He believed that the City got a 31-foot setback on
Frontera, and although the street width had been established, a curb h~d not
been installed as yet. There was an existing guard rail at present which would
come down, the curb would be set there, and the street widened. The reason the
curb was not installed was due to that fact that they had already let a contract
to handle the one that had to go under the freeway. That contract was being
implemented at present and thus Frontera would be wide enough to handle the
additional traffic. He confirmed for Councilman Roth that he objected to the
possibility of reopening Newkirk, but he had no objection to ingress and egress
by using Frontera.
Councilman Roth asked, when the developer took action to abandon Newkirk if a
recording took place so that someone would not have the ability to give an
easement on it.
Mr. Jay Titus, Civil Engineer, explained if a City street was involved and the
City abandoned that street, the abandonment was recorded with the County Recorder,
and thus there was a public record. Newkirk was a County street and the request
was made to the County for abandonment requiring City concurrence.
Mr. Adams explained that they had a 15-year lease on the property and were at-
tempting to buy it now which included Newkirk. Frank Wade was the property
owner and Holly Wade Tuzewski was the heir who gave the developer the easement
to Newkirk. Further, Mr. Stevens, who was present from Lincoln Building
Materials, talked to Holly Wade last evening and she did not know anything
about the easement that was given.
Mr. Titus clarified that the heir could give a private easement to an individual
for their personal use, not a public easement. The road was now private property.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then asked to hear from the ProPerty owners and anyone
else who wished to speak to General Plan Amendment No. 157, Land Use and Circu-
lation Element.
City Clerk Linda Roberts first announced that a letter had been received from
the Orange County Water District, dated March 31, 1980 stating that, although
they had no objection to the change involving those lands privately owned, it
was their belief that the property owned by the County should remain available
for open space.
Mr. Bill Uhl, representing Mohler Development, the petitioner, stated that since
the discussion about Newkirk did he realize before the meeting that Mr. Adams
had an objection to the easement that his client obtained on Newkirk. He then
presented plans to the Council showing the configuration of the property and
why they were requesting use of the easement over Newkirk. He then stated he
wanted to clarify any confusion there might be as to Newkirk Road. He could
not offer anything to the Council to alleviate Mr. Adams' concerns as that
would have to be between Mr. Adams and Mohler to work out in an agreement. Since
they initiated the General Plan Amendment and staff had made several proposals
for reclarifying or changing.the General Plan, they felt theirs was a good
use because there were industrial uses further to the east. They had an odd
8O-356
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April Ir 1980, 1:30 P.M.
shaped parcel which had been a dump at times, requiring a major amount of rework.
When finished, they would have a very nice improvement in that area, and they
planned to bring services to the area which were not there now, to the better-
ment of the community.
Councilman Bay stated since their interest on the west end of all the property
involved in the General Plan Amendment, he assumed that their concern would not
necessarily'be to make all of that area industrial and thus would not care if
Exhibit "A" or "B" were approved; Mr. Uhl confirmed that it did not matter to
them which Exhibit was approved.
Councilman Bay stated a concern of his was building anything on an old dump site,
and he asked Mr. Uhl what they were going to do to the land before building on
it.
Mr. Uhl explained that there was not a lot of vegetation or rotting material
involved. They had extensive soils reports on the property and the property
would have to be developed in accordance with the recommendations of that report.
There would be a major amount of earth work involved in restructuring the site.
Councilman Bay asked if it was a reasonable economic assumption that the reason
it had not been done before was because the rapidly increasing price of industrial
land in that area and now it Was economically feasible.
Mr. Uhl answered that he thought that was a correct assumption.
Councilman Roth explained that him concern revolved around the possiblity
of opening up Newkirk Road and the ramifications such action would have in
relation to the recycling center which was an important function in trying
to conserve materials. It would cost a fortune for Mr. Adams to have to move
his buildings and scale.
Mr. Uhl responded that he did not see how their having an easement would have
any effect on'Mr. Adams' operation. To the best of his knowledge, the Fire
Department did not absolutely require the secondary entrance to their site, and
'they proceeded because usually the Fire Department liked to have access points.
Their project would not die on the basis of that access and he did not see his
client being disturbed if they only had access to Frontera, as long as that was
within the requirements of the City.
Councilman Roth stated he was supportive of what the developer was going to do
with that property in constructing a beautiful industrial park.
Councilman Bay asked if they had any show windows planned in their building; Mr.
· Uhl answered that they had some glass, not for potential commercial, but a limited
amount to give some idea of the outdoors for the front office.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Uhl talked about excavating and removing the
orginal dump site material and she wanted to know if there would be a problem of
methane gas escaping, and if so, what they would do.
80-357
City .Hal~,.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Uhl indicated that he did not believe there would be such a problem because
the materials under the site consisted mostly of building materials such as
concrete, asphalt and the like. He did not believe there was any vegetation
on the site, but.would check the soils report.
Councilwoman KaYWood asked if in checking the report there was the potential
for such a problem, would they then do something to alleviate the situation;
Mr. Uhl answered "yes".
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Bay stated that he had some concerns on the GPA from the standpoint
of Exhibit "A" which included the entire area and changed the General Plan to
make it General Industrial. Everyone was aware of his views of industrial
development--he was certainly in favor of it. He was, however, concerned with
the rest of the area east of Mr. Adams' operation to the extent that it extended
even beyond the railroad tracks. As he recalled, the County owned a goodly portion
of the property, and he believed they heard a few months back where the County was
going to offer it for sale, which he assumed they would.
Mr. Fick interjected and reported that the County backed off their request for
the time being.
Councilman Bay asked, in talking about the entire area, the extent of the dump
site. He wanted to know if in the past it existed across the whole length of
the area or if it had been located to the west only.
Mr. Tashiro responded that the dump site extended from Newkirk all the way to
the railroad tracks.
Councilman Bay was concerned if they changed the General Plan and made the area
totally industrial, how they were going to maintain control so that proper pre-
paration was accomplished as the land developed. He wanted to know if there was
a way to lock that down.
Mr. Fick answered that none of the property was under a resolution of intent,
and it was currently zoned RS-A-43,000 and, therefore, every parcel would be
coming in for a zoning action with a public hearing before the Planning Com-
mission and/or the Council. In addition, the problem parcels, such as the
one under consideration, in a dump site area, the Building Department, prior
to the issuance of building permits, typically required soils compaction reports
so that all building concerns and public safety would be considered.
Councilman Bay then asked if the City was going to get involved in some high
cost storm drain in that area.
Mr. Fick stated as each parcel developed, the owner of the property and/or the
developer would be required to install storm drain facilities in accordance
with City plans and specifications.
80-358
q%tY Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 .P.M.
Councilman Bay commented that it appeared to be easy to install such facilities
because the Santa Ana River was so close. However, he cautioned the developers,
that it was not always as easy as taking storm drainage straight into the River,
because there were dams and dikes for water settling in the River bed, and, there-
fore, it was possible that they would have to go a long way south before going
into the river. He then asked the access to the extreme eastern end of the
development of the property.
Mr. Fick answered that presently Frontera Street dead-ended and thus, public access
for the development going easterly, the street would have to be extended to serve
properties on the eastern portion. As to whether or not they could go over
or under the railroad tracks, a significant cost might be incurred and at the
time of development, there would have to be consideration given as to whether
it would be economically feasible to develop the property.
Relative to his last concern, Councilman Bay noted that the Redevelopment Plan
showed the area as open space. He asked if the General Plan Amendment was taken
before the Redevelopment Commission and did staff express their opinions on it.
Mr. Fick explained that the plan was reviewed by the Redevelopment staff and
the City Attorney's office. The comments they received back from Redevelopment
staff was that the Redevelopment plan as proposed reflected the General Plan.
That was why the property was shown as open space on the Redevelopment exhibit,
because it was shown as open space on the General Plan. Redevelopment had no
comments to offer with respect to the proposed change. The City Attorney's
office did indicate that since an ordinance was adopted for the Redevelopment
Plan Map, to avoid having conflicting ordinances at the time zoning would be
adopted, it would be appropriate to amend the Redevelopment Plan Map although
it would not necessarily be mandatory to do so.
Councilman Bay stated he would like to hear from Norm Priest or someone from
Redevelopment on the matter. What was happening now was discussed in the past
by the Redevelopment Commission at the time he was on that Commission. He then
explained some of the discussions that took place.
Councilman Bay then referred to the ADT estimates that would be created and
asssumed that the 2,860 figure as shown in the staff report to the Planning
Commission would occur if the whole area were developed industrial. He drove
very close to that location every day and maintained that the impact on Glassell
of an additional 2,860 vehicles exiting or entering Frontera off of Glassell
at certain pesk times would create a great deal of traffic problems. He felt
strongly and, in fact, would submit if they considered Exhibit "B" and limited
the industrial zoning to the western end of the property, the 17 acres, leaving
the other as general open space, would be a better move from two points: (1)
There would be a control point in the General Plan if they wanted further
development to the east and that control would be at the General Plan level;
and (2) He did.not think the ADT of 2,860 would be anywhere near that if they
limited the General Plan change to Exhibit "B" which would solve the applicant's
immediate problem.
Mr. Fick clarified that the ADT would probably be closer to 1,000, as opposed to
2,860.
80-359
C~tM Hall,.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, Councilman Bay recommended approval of Exhibit
"B", rather than "A", at this time, notwithstanding in the future that the need
for general industrial property might become more pressing, thus balancing the
economics of what might have to be done to the property, as well as the eventual
access from the standpoint of traffic.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that the proposal
to amend the Anaheim General Plan to change the Land Use designation of the
subject property from General Open Space to General Industrial for 17.1 acres
and General Open Space of 30.6 acres, located south of the Riverside Freeway
and north of the Santa Ana River between Glassell Street to the west and
.Tustin Avenue to the east; and to change the current Circulation Element
designation of Clementine Street between Manchester Avenue and Freedman Way
from a "Collector" to "Secondary Arterial Highway" and to delete Manchester
Avenue between Clementine Street and Haster Street as a Secondary Arterial
Highway and to change "Collector" designation to "Commuter" designation; finds
that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration; that
no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumu-
lative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the require-
ment to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Exhibit "B" were approved at this time, would it
close the door on anything.
Mr. Fick responded that it would not close the door, but it would mean that
potential developers on any other parcels would also be coming in with perhaps
a General Plan Amendment request. It would repermit a hard look in the future
for'anyone who wished to develop their properties.
Councilman Roth stated he was going to support Councilman Bay's recommendation
and further recommended that the Redevelopment Commission agendize the item and
take a good look at the situation, including a field inspection of the property.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-133 for adoption, approving General
Plan Amendment No. 157, Exhibit "B" for the Land Use Element, and Exhibit "A"
for the Circulation Element. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-133: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 157,
EXHIBIT "B" FOR THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND EXHIBIT "A" FOR THE CIRCULATION ELE-
MENT.
Roi1 Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-133 duly passed and adopted.
80-360
City .Hall,' Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
164: RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION OF A PROPOSED STORM DRAIN - WESTERLY
TERMINUS OF SAVANNA STREET: Request by Mr. Bill Waddle to discuss the subject,
was submitted.
City Engineer William Devitt believed it important to brief the history of the
problem they had through the years relative to the subject. He then relayed
the historical background of the situation from the early 1960's to present.
In concluding, he stated it had never been the City's position that they would
pay for the installation of the permanent storm drain. He referred to two past
Council meetings (February 21 and March 14, 1978--see minutes those dates) wherein
Mr. Waddle indicated he would pay for 50% of the cost to install the permanent
storm drain. That was still staff's recommendation--that the City pay for 50%
and that Mr. Waddle pay 50%. The estimated total cost of the project was between
$15,000 and $17,000.
Councilman Roth referred to letter dated November 14~ 1976 from George R. Dietz,
Real Property Agent, since retired, and asked if the temporary drain had been
constructed and paid for only by the City.
Mr. Devitt answered "yes" and that the cost of the temporary construction was
approximately $3,000. Further, it was always intended that the ultimate facility
be constructed at the time of development of Mr. Waddle's property.
A brief discussion followed relative to the Dietz letter and the general indication
was that it was unclear. Mr. Devitt commented that was why he could understand
why Mr. Waddle took the position that he did. However, in two previous appear-
ances before the Council subsequent to the letter, he indicated that while Mr.
Dietz had spoken to him in 1976, "since that time, he agreed to split the cost
after the City's Real Property Division explained it was standard to do so."
(see minutes March 14, 1978, page 78-302). In addition, on February 21, 1978,
Mr. Waddle again appeared before the Council and relayed the following: "In
the Fall of t976, Mr. George Dietz informed him that the people on the north-
easterly adjoining property instigated a lawsuit against the City of Anaheim
and himself relativ~ to a water problem on Savanna Street running down and
going across their property. After Mr. Dietz approached him on several
occasions, he gave Anaheim an easement across his property in order to drain
the water off Savanna Street. Mr. Dietz indicated that Anaheim would bear the
costs; however, later Mr. Matt Boscia, Senior Real Property Representative,
indicated that the costs would more likely be shared 50-50 which was agreeable
'to Mr. Waddle." (see minutes February 21, 1978--page 78-234 and 78-235).
Mr. Devitt reported further that they had written to Mr. Dietz under date of
January 29, 1980 asking how he had intended to represent the City's position to
Mr. Waddle, and Mr. Dietz responded in his letter of February 1, 1980, which
the City Engineer read (on file in the City Clerk's office). Mr. Devitt main-
tained that they were to pay for the cost of the work they were to do at that
time, which was temporary construction work. Since that time, Mr. Waddle had
a storm drain ptanprepared to construct the ultimate facility, but the plan
~had never been approved. He (Waddle was before the Council to day with what
he felt was an honest and legitimate complaint.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the sump area had been filled in by Mr. Waddle.
80-361
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Devitt answered "yes". He further stated that he had personal knowledge of
that area for many years and the main storm drain down Ball Road came down the
railroad track and discharged into the Carbon Creek channel.
Mrs. Mary Bader, 6640 Brewster Court, Cypress (mother-in-law of Mr. Waddle),
explained at the beginning of the transaction, she was one of the owners of the
property and owner of Kemeal Realty. Mr. Dietz was in her office no less than
four times. A developer friend of hers advised her not to deed to the City
until she got an agreement from the City. She was reluctant to sign it, and
Mr. Waddle talked to Mr. Dietz who wanted her to sign. She refused to do so
until Mr. Dietz sent the letter it would be a temporary drain and later a
permanent drain at no cost to them. She took the November 14, 1976 letter to
her attorney for interpretation, and he advised as long as it was not costing
her anything, there was no harm to her. At that time, she signed the easement
deed.
Mr'. Bill Waddle, 4322 Crescent, Cypress, explained that Mr. Dietz had been to
their office several times on the matter since there was some problem relative
to the drainage. Working from the posted map of the area, he stated that they
had purchased the property in 1975 and the dirt was already there, but he did
not know-when it had been placed there. He had soil tests done and anything
that was put on the property was good. Apparently, some builder had put dirt
on the property and then did not go ahead with it. He personally did not have
one load of dirt put on the property. He did recognize there was a problem and
they talked to Mr. Dietz. He felt that Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 4 of the
Dietz letter as follows were self explanatory: "The City of Anaheim has a
proposed plan to construct a R.C.P. storm drain across a portion of your pro-
perty, at the west end of Savanna Street. The City will bear all costs for
this.project."
He clarified that Mrs. Bader had taken a letter to her attorney for interpretation
and she then signed the deed. He felt that the $3,000 cost for the temporary
drain and the $10,000 cost in today's dollars, as suggested previously, was way
out of line. The City graded a shallow ditch two to three feet and perhaps
a foot in one area he pointed to and the last 20 feet they just slurred a black
top on it to keep it from wash%ng away. That was all that was done--it was
graded in two hours and blacktop put in, and it was a very minor thing which
he could have done himself.
At the time he appeared before the Council, he was asking for 12 units on the
property. His property was zoned for 20 units in Buena Park. He obtained
approval for 12 units from the City of Buena Park and then came to Anaheim to
ask for utilities and was "shot down" before he got to the podium by the then
Mayor Thom who stated the Anaheim residents in the area don not want that high a
density, but we'll listen to your plea anyway. At that time, he did not have
any idea what the project would cost. If he had put a maximum development on
the property, he would have reconsidered splitting the cost on the drain. He
started his project in Ocotober of 1978 and applied for all utilities, sewer,
water, etc., with the City and kept pushing that. He finished his project up
to the carpets, drapes and appliances in March of 1979, where it then sat from
that time to November of 1979 before the City ever gave him an okey to put
utilities in. During that time, there was quite a bit of vandalism and also
the interest rate had gone from 9% to 16%. The project was scheduled to be
complete this week and the cul-de-sac was graded.
80-362
City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
On February 8, 1980 he came in and'spoke with the City Engineer and he (Waddle)
became quite upset when Mr. Devitt told him what he did. He (Devitt) asked if
his utilities were in and turned on. He (Waddle) answered "no", that he was not
ready to turn them on. Mr. Devitt then told him he might have a problem getting
them turned on, whereupon Mr. Waddle asked if he was telling him that if he did
not share-the storm drain cost, they would hold his utilities up and use that
as a leverage. He stated that Mr. Devitt then answered, "that is the way the
game is played." At the time Jack Judd, Subdivisions Supervisor, and Matt Boscia,
Senior Real Property Agent, were present, and h~.l(Waddle) would take an oath as
to that being the truth.
Councilman Roth asked if he was a developer and, if so, were there any other
cities who paid for such facilities,
Mr. Waddle answered that he was a developer; he was developing the project for
his mother-in-law, and he did not have any other experience such as this.
Cmuncilman Roth then asked the City Engineer if a precedent had been set in the
City where they had ever paid for somebody's storm drain, since he was under the
impression that it'was always the developer's responsibility.
Mr. Devitt replied that he could not think of anyone off-hand and as a general
rule, those improvements were paid for by the developer. Additionally, he asked
that Mr. Waddle give an estimate as to what he indicated the cost of the improve-
ment would be now.
Mr. Waddle responded that he did not have any idea, but that he did have one bid
which scared him at $27,000 and he did not seek bids any further at the time.
He further maintained that he did not even need the property for parking, for
a turning radius, or for anything. He could have cut the ditch and there would
have been no water problem. He was in Buena Park and no one would have had any
problem. He could sell the property and there was no reason for him to put
the drainage in.
Councilman Roth stated he realized that Buena Park's building standards were
not the same as Anaheim and Mr. Waddle had a higher density in Buena Park before
coming to Anaheim.
Mr. Waddle stated that he had nine-tenths of an acre and assumed that Anaheim
would allow 8 units on the property. He confirmed for Councilman Bay that at
this time it was 8 units on nine-tenths of an acre, but that he did not need the
storm drain. Also what was implied in talking to Mr. Dietz was exactly what he
and his mother-in-law had said, that Anaheim needed to get rid of the water
problem and that the City would bear all costs for it. That was the exact under-
standing and they made it quite clear to Mr. Dietz and that was why the letter
was written that way.
Councilman Overholt asked what would have happened in November of 1976 if Mr.
Waddle had not granted the easement.
City Engineer Devitt replied that they would have had a lawsuit since adjacent
property owners hired an attorney and were preparing to sue the City and the
owner of the property, so that they were both under the gun. The only reason
80-363
City Hall~ ~naheim~ C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April iD 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
it was ever suggested that the City share the cost of the improvement was due
to the fact that it fully recognized that the water that historically came down
Savanna Street was street water. They had been in accord in past instances
where the judge had said once the water was in the street, it was a City respon-
sibility to take care of it. They did feel a sense of obligation because the
source of water was coming from a City of Anaheim public street, but on the other
hand felt that the property owner had an obligation also.
Mmyor Pro Tem Overholt asked if the storm drain was of benefit to Mr. Waddle.
Simultaneously, Mr. Devitt answered "yes", and Mr. Waddle answered "no".
Mr. Devitt explained that presently there was an open AC ditch, and it was
questionable that that open ditch could remain there. It had always been
the intent that at the cul-de-sac there would be a catch basin constructed and
put in an enclosed pipe. That would enable Mr. Waddle to utilize the service
of that ditch. Further, Mr. Waddle would have been sued if they had not
constructed the ditch, and the City as well.
Mr. Waddle insisted that it did not benefit him at all and he was going to
landscape the property because he did not need it for parking or anything else.
Mr. Devitt then confirmed that the cost estimate to build the 27-inch R.C.P.
was between $15,000 and $17,000. He was out to the property yesterday and Mr.
Waddle had graded and poured concrete on the west side of the ditch. Some dirt
had spilled into it, and they would have a distinct liability with that ditch
and with the people residing on that property if any damage occurred should the
ditch remain and the pipe not be constructed. An additional fence would be
necessary on the west side to cover the easement so that the City would not
be exposed to that liability.
Mr. Waddle suggested that he just give that property to the City because he did
not need it.
Councilman Bay asked if there had been any attempt to negotiate between the
Engineering Department and Mr. Waddle on some fair middle ground on sharing
the cost.
Mr. Devitt answered, not in a real sense. He (Waddle) came to the City and
indicated on the basis of the Dietz letter that he felt the City should pay the
full cost. Historically, 10 years ago they recognized they were involved in the
problem, and it was suggested that an appropriate fair share would be a 50-50
split. Mr. Waddle in his response to the Council at later dates than the
Dietz letter indicated a 50-50 split was acceptabie to him.
Mr. Waddle indicated that now he had a "bad taste in his mouth" over how long
it took the City to give him his plans, resulting in his project sitting for 8
months trying to get his underground utilities. It cost him several thousand
dollars for engineering on the storm drain already and after being told that
his utilities were going to be held up if he did not agree to split the storm
drain, he did not feel very good about the situation. He maintained that no
consideration had been given to him that would make him want to share anything.
He felt the City made a deal as outlined in the November 14, 1976 letter, and he
felt the City should honor its commitment.
80-364
qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood and Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then posed questions to Mr. Waddle
for purposes of clarification at the conclusion of which, Councilman Bay asked
what responsibility the City of Buena Park would have in this case.
City Attorney Hopkins replied that Buena Park would have an interest, but in order
to determine to what extent, he would have to examine more carefully their ordin-
ances and the Government Code.
Councilman Bay then asked what authority was vested by the City and Mr. George
Deitz at the time the November 14, 1976 letter was written.
Mr. Hopkins answered that the City Charter, Section 518, provided that the City
shall not be bound by any contract unless the same shall be made in writing,
approved by the City Council and signed on behalf of the City by the Mayor and
City Clerk or by such other officer or officers as shall be designated by the
City Council. Strictly speaking, only such documents that were signed by the
Mayor and City Clerk were binding as contracts of the City. Mr. Deitz was act-
ing as an agent of the City and representing the Council to that extent. How-
ever, as far as a legal obligation, only the City Council could create that,
and this would be an item for a court to decide.
Councilman Bay surmised, from a legal standpoint, therefore, the letter was
not binding on the City as a legal contract.
Mr. Hopkins stated that would be his opinion pursuant to Charter Section 518.
Councilman Bay stated he was tryin-g to get some feeling regarding the Council's
position vs. their ethical position vs. their negotiation position, as well as
the City's interest, Mr. Waddle's interest and Buena Park's responsibility in
the area.
Mr. Devitt reported that a letter was written to the Assistant City Engineer of
Buena Park, Mr. O'Neal, in September 1978 which he then read. About that same
time, they discovered that somebody had brought in considerable fill and caused
the diversion of water which was causing problems to Anaheim citizens. They
tried to ascertain if anybody had ever taken out a grading permit to bring in
the fill material and there was never any grading permit taken out from the City
of Anaheim and to their knowledge, the City of Buena Park. The fill occurred
without the knowledge of either City.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated it was his opinion that the November 14, 1976 letter
was crystal clear and Mr. Dtetz represented to Mr. Waddle or whoever owned the
property that in consideration for executing the easement deed, the City would
bear all costs for the project. He asked what authority Mr. Dietz had to solicit
the execution of easement deeds to the City.
Mr. Hopkins reiterated that Mr. Dietz was a representative of the City acting
in his capacity as an agent. He did not have any documentation at hand relative
to what action was taken on the easement deed am to whether a formal resolution
had been approved at the time. The City's position legally, setting the ethical
and moral aspect aside, the only contract binding upon the City would be one
approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk or persons
authorized by the Council. There was no evidence of any authorization by the
Council to Mr. Dietz to enter into an agreement with Mr. Waddle.
80-365
City ~all,. anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if there could be such authorization; Mr. Hopkins
answered, there could be.
Mmyor Pro Tem Overholt asked if citizens, Mr. Waddle or whoever, when dealing
with the Real Property Agents or the Real Property Section of the Engineering
Division, had a right tO rely on the representation made as to what consider-
ation would be given for the execution of deeds.
Mr. Hopkins responded that the owners did consult with their legal counsel at
the time and any legal counsel dealing with a City or corporation should
realize that the only binding agreement would be one approved by the legisla-
tive body.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if the owners would have a right to rescind the
deeds or get them back; Mr. Hopkins answered that would be up to a court to
decide.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated, in his opinion, the November 14, 1976 communi-
cation was not a "bumb" letter, but a crystal clear letter which clearly stated
that the City would pick up the cost. He felt that the citizens were entitled
to rely on representations made to them by agents of the City.
City Engineer Devitt stated that he did have something pertinent that he just
discovered which was a copy of the easement deed at the bottom of which it
stated, "Note--the westerly 20 feet of the above described easement shall be
used solely as a temporary construction easement and shall terminate upon the
construction of an underground storm drain." He clarified for the Mayor Pro
Tem that there were two easements, one for the storm drain and one for the
temporary construction easement. The easement deed for the storm drain was
signed by Mary Bader on November 16, 1976; Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that
was two days after the November 14, 1976 letter.
COUncilman Bay questioned the interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the November 14,
1976 letter, "The City will bear all costs of the project." He assumed it related
to Paragraph 3, "The initial construction will be an open ditch. The 27" R.C.P.
will be constructed, sometime in the future, in conjunction with a possible develop-
ment of the property." He questioned Mayor Pro Tem Overholt's finalized inter-
pretation that the City will bear all costs for the project related to the whole '
of Paragraph 3. He asked if he (Overholt) would admit it was possible it could
have been intended to only cover, "the initial construction will be an open ditch."
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt conceded that anything was possible. He referred to the
first paragraph of the letter which he felt was the cost assumption.
Councilman Roth recounted the background history of the project going back to
why Mr. Waddle appeared before the Council in the first place. He had a piece
of-property which he could not develop because he did not have utilities. He
requested utilities from the City, otherwise he would have a piece of property
that was landlocked and undevelopable. In that discussion, they also talked
about the problem of the water.
After further discussion between the Council, staff and Mr. Waddle, Councilman
Roth stated all he had to rely on at this point were the minutes of the Council
Meetings after the November 14, 1976 letter. It appeared to him that Mr. Waddle
80-366
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
at that time had an opportunity to state for the record that he was not sat-
isfied with the Council's direction to share 50-50 on the cost of drainage, and
he was relying on a letter sent prior to the subsequent appearances before the
Council on February 21, and March 14, 1978. He wanted to make his position
clear that, although he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Overholt that government had
the responsibility to all citizens to use the utmost honesty and integrity in
dealing with them, at the same time, as an elected official, he had the respon-
sibility to protect the taxpayers' money. Exacting steps were taken to record
the proceedings of Council meetings as evidenced by not only the presence of the
City Clerk and her assistant who took the minutes of the meeting, but also by
tape recordings for clarification if necessary.
Mr. Waddle stated .that he did not agree, but said that he wou!d consider it.
Mr. Boscia stated it would be their policy to share the cost. At that time,
he was trying to get 12 units through, and it was turned down, and he was only
given 8 units. If he could have put 12 units on the property and used that
area for parking, the situation would have been a lot different, and he would
have been more amenable to sharing the cost.
MOTION: Councilman Roth stated that he had to uphold the staff in this case,
considering the minutes of the previous meetings. He thereupon moved that
the cost of the storm drain be shared 50-50, the City absorbing one-half the
cost, and Mr. Waddle sharing one-half the cost. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that he could not agree with the
motion on the basis of following the logic from what he read in the mintues which
he felt were the key in making a decision. It made economic sense to him that
if Mr. Waddle, in developing the property, was trying to get 12 units on his .9
acre, that he would then say that he would consider the 50-50 cost on that
basis. When he ended up with 8 units instead of 12, he (Bay) heard no stipu-
lation out of the minutes by Mr. Waddle that he would share the cost 50-50.
Therefore, he had to base his decision on the interpretation of the letter from
Mr. Deitz and what he considered their ethical responsibility based on that
letter. Since it was all he had to go on, he could not support the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she was on the Council at the time and the
City in no way would have approved 12 units because that many were not allowed.
Buena Park would have allowed 12, and that was the basis for Mr. Waddle's not
coming in and annexing to the City. He had the option of annexing and he would
not do it. The requirements were less stringent in Buena Park, but there was no
way he could get utilities.
Councilman Bay stated that while Mr. Waddle was in trying to get his utilities
and other things settled with Anaheim, he was at the same time dealing with the
Buena Park Planning Commission and Council who would allow 12 units. He assumed
therefore, that Mr. Waddle was trying to get Anaheim's approval in supplying
the utilities so that he could go back to Buena Park and get the 12 units per
acre.
Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth refuted that assumption.
80-367
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley explained that as much as they could at that hearing, the
Council imposed Anaheim's standards before agreeing to serve them with utilities.
They had indicated if he was going to use Buena Park standards, he should get
Buena Park utilities, which was impossible to do.
Councilman Bay then surmised it was possible that there was an implied stipulation
to share 50-50 based on even the 8 units.
Mr. Waddle stated that was not true and Anaheim's General Plan at the time showed
more than 8 units to the acre.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that the General Plan Amendment indicated there
were to be no apartments and initially Mr. Waddle's project was going to be a
single-family home.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt concluded that he did not have the benefit of being on
the Council~at that time or'the benefit of anything that would change officially
the representation of the City's Real Property Agent on November 14, 1976. He
believed that the statement was made at that time the City will bear all costs
of the proposed plan to construct an R.C.P. storm drain across a portion of the
praperty and that the deeds were executed on reliance of that letter. It also
disturbed him, if there was any truth in the fact that City departments were
holding up approval of certain requests to try to encourage a modification of
an existing agreement, he was going to look into the matter. It was his opinion
that the City, because of the action of the Real Property Agent, either with or
without authority, had the responsibility to bear the cost of that storm drain.
He would, therefore, vote against the motion.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. AYES: Roth and Kaywood. NOES:
Bay and Overholt. Councilman Seymour was absent.
Because of the tie vote, City Attorney Hopkins announced that by operation of
law,. the matter would have to be continued for full Council action.
Mayor Pro Tem overholt asked if Mr. Waddle should be present at the next meeting,
which would be April 8, 1980; City Attorney Hopkins stated it would be desirable.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, determination
~f the responsibility for the installation of a proposed storm drain at the
'westerly terminus of Savanna Street was continued one week for full Council
action. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Waddle asked if they could proceed with their inspections on the rest of
the project; Mayor Pro Tem Overholt advised that was between him and the City's
departments.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
80-368
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim s6bmitted by Robert Gagliardino for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of light pole falling on his automobile which was north-
bound on Santa Ana Freeway near Lincoln Avenue exit, on or about March 3, 2980.
b. Claim submitted 'by Judith Lea Kollar and Bruce C. Lane for damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of parkway tree falling on fence and garden at 406
South West Street, on or about March 3, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Carol L. Brooks for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of debris in roadway at Knott and Lincoln Avenues left by work crews,
on or about March 5, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 178: Orange County Water District Representatives Report--summary for 1979
and local and statewide water conditions.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to send a letter of commendation to Mr. August Lenain
on the excellent report submitted. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Council-
man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
b. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Report for February 1980.
c. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of December 19, 1979.
d. 175: Public Utilities'Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report
for February 1980.
e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of February 20 and 27 and
March 5, 1980.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-134
through 80R-142, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-134: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (Susan D. James)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-135: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OAK STREET &
OAK STREET ALLEY STREET IMPROVEMENT 33' W/O ANAHEIM BOULEVARD TO 20' E/O CLEMENTINE
STREET, ~N THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2280; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 1, 1980, 2:00 p.m.)
80-369
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-136: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BARRIER FREE
ANAHEIM NO. 4 STREET IMPROVEMENT - AREA BOUNDED BY BROADWAY, BALL ROAD, MAGNOLIA
AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3310;
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUC-
TION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 1, 1980, 2:00 p.m.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CERRITOS
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT - EUCLID STREET TO NUTWOOD STREET, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIF-
ICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened May 1, 1980, 2:00 p.m.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LINCOLN AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENT - HARBOR BOULEVARD TO CITRON STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3330; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS,
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 1, 1980, 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: 2 M.G. RESER-
VOIR AT LENAIN FIL/qlATION PI~ANT, IN THE CIqTY OF AlqA/~EIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-
26500-34200; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 8, 1980, 2:00 p.m.)
129: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FIRE STATION NO. 4 - APPARATUS
ROOM REMODELING, 2736 W. ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-
911-7107. (N~ort Harbor Construction)
80-370
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MIRALOMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENT - TUSTIN AVENUE TO 1583' E/O KRAEMER BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-1050. (Nick Didovic Construction Company)
113: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, INSTRU-
MENTS, AND PAPERS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Police Department records)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 80R-134 through 80R-142, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held March 10, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-29: Submitted by Bernard George, Earl Charles
Waffle, Jr., Billie Dean Waffle and Gordon E. Sloan, for a change in zone from
RS-7200 to RM-1200, to construct a 20-unit apartment complex on property located
at 1216 and 1222 Belmont Avenue and 1018 North East Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-48, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-29, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2062: Submitted by Robert P. and Loring P.
Warmington, to permit the on-sale of alcoholic beverages in a restaurant on
CL zoned property located at 2100 East Ball Road, with a Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-50, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2062, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
3. VARIANCE NO. 1314 - AMENDING PC73-267: Submitted by the Planning Commission,
requesting amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. PC73-267, to exclude
a 1.03 acre parcel from the termination of Variance No. 1314.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-51, amended
Resolution No. PC73-267, nunc pro tunc.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-16 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Price
Development Company, requesting approval of revised plans to construct a commer-
cial shopping center on CL zoned property located at the northwest corner of
Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street.
80-371
City_.Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans to Reclassification
No. 79-80-16.
No action was taken on the foregoing items therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
VARIANCE NO. 3122: Application by Angelo and Irene Manni and George H. and
Linda L. Sadaghiani, to retain existing duplexes and illegal garage conversions
on RS-7200 zoned property located at 3403, 3403A, 3405, 3409 and 3411 West
Thornton Avenue, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-47, granted in'
part Variance No. 3122, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject variance from the Planning Commission
Consent Calendar and requested a review of the application.
FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 10710: Developer, IPS Companies; tract located at the south-
west corner of Crescent Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, containing a l-lot, 44-unit
condominium subdivision on RM-3000 zoned property.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivision,
together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's
General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10710, as recommended
by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 26, 1980. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 10738: Developer, Pacesetter Homes, Inc.; tract is
located on the south side of Vancouver Street at Colony Street, containing a
l-lot, 60-unit condominium subdivision on RM-3000 zoned property.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with
the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10738,
as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 26, 1980.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4114: City Manager Talley reported that in accordance with
the Council request, he conferred with the Chief of Police regarding the proposed
ordinance. The Chief's suggestion was merely that each time the Council imposed
new restrictions requiring resources without adding any additional strength to
the Police Department, it either provided an increased lack of response by the
Police Department or further depleted the Department's resources having what he
considered more pressing duties than monitoring "no parking" which he put at a very
low priority.
Councilman Bay stated that it also added revenues from the parking fines.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4114 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
80-372
cit% Hall, ADaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4114: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDI~] TITLE 14, CHAPTER
14.32, SECTION 14.32.158 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SUBSECTIONS
.010, .020, .030 AND .040 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (No parking Mid-
night to 6:00 a.m., on Chestnut Place; Cypress Street, N/S, Busch to Santa Fe
Railroad right of way and on the S/S, East Street to Railroad right of way;
Rose and Vine Streets, both sides, Cypress to Lincoln Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The ~ayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4114 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4115: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4115 for adoPtion.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4115: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62 (23) and (24), RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor P~o Tem declared Ordinance No. 4115 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4116: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4116 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4116: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-13, RM-3000)
148: CITY SELECTION COMMITTE MEETING - APRIL 10, 1980: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt
referred to letter dated March 13, 1980 from the County Clerk, Secretary of the
City Selection Committee, announcing the subject meeting and also listing six
%tems for consideration. He asked the Council consider those items and give
direction next Tuesday so that he might vote the expression of the Council at
the April 10, 1980 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:35 P.M~
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK