1978/03/14 78-294
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (entered at 1:34 P.M.), Kott,
Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon ~oyt
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
PRESENTATION - MERITORIOUS FINANCIAL REPORTING: Mayor Thom presented a Certificate
of Award to Mr. George Ferrone, Director of Finance, on behalf of the City of Anaheim,
from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officer for meritorious financial
reporting for the City. ~
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, minutes of the
City Council regular meeting held February 7, 1978, were approved, subject to typo-
graphical corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,623,682.92, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
Councilman Seymour entered the Chamber at 1:34 P.M.
150: PERALTA CANYON PARK PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION (PHASE II): Councilman Kott
offered Resolution No. 78R-160 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
March 3, 1978, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-160: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING AND DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN WORK MAY BE PERFORMED BETTER OR MORE
ECONOMICALLY BY THE CITY WITH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES, AND/OR THAT CERTAIN MATERIALS OR
SUPPLIES MAY BE PURCHASED AT A LOWER PRICE IN THE OPEN MARKET, AND DETERMINING TO
PERFORM SAID WORK AND/OR MAKE SAID PURCHASES WITHOUT COMPETITIVE BIDDING RELATING
TO THE PERALTA CANYON PARK PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION (PHASE II).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-160 duly passed and adopted.
78-295
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
150: REQUEST - WAIVER OF FEES & CHARGES USE OF PARK FACILITIES - ANAHEIM FOUNDATION
FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS: (Pearson Park Theatre) Councilman Kott explained that
he had spoken with Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director James Ruth, and he con-
curred with the request of the Foundation to waive fees and charges for the use of
park facilities June 26 through July 27, 1978, specifically for the Pearson Park
Theatre.
Mr. Ruth stated that Community Assistance Funds were established for such purposes.
However, the request, if approved, would take all the remaining funds in that account
and if any additional requests were received between now and the end of the fiscal
year, he would be back before the Council for Council Contingency Funds.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, fees and charges for
use of park facilities (Pearson Park Theatre) June 26 through Junly 27, 1978, were
waived as requested by the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts. MOTION
CARRIED.
174.123: PARTICIPATION IN JUVENILE DIVERSION/TREATMENT PROGRAM~ JANUARY i %HROUGH
AUGUST 31~ 1978: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-161 for adoption
as recommended in memorandum dated March 6, 1978, from the Chief of Police. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-161: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE AND THE CITY OF STANTON RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN A
JUVENILE DIVERSION/TREATMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-161 duly passed and adopted.
159: PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM WAGES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC WORKS: Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-162 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated March 8, 1978, from the Assistant City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-162: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DIRECTING THE FILING AND POSTING OF PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM WAGES PERTAINING
TO PUBLIC WORKS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-162 duly passed and adopted.
78-296
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
152: SMALL CLAIMS ACTION - AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PERSONS TO ACT FOR THE CITY:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-163 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated March 9, 1978, from the City Attorney. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-163: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PERSONS TO ACT FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH
SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS; AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-485.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-163 duly passed and adopted.
123: EVALUATION OF SLOPE FAILURES IN WESTRIDGE TRACTS: (agreement with Pacific
Soils Engineering, Inc.) In answer to Councilman Kott, City Manager William Talley
explained that the proposed agreement involved the engineering firm who originally
performed the consulting services on the subject tracts as outlined in his memoran-
dum dated March 10, 1978. Following Council's direction at the meeting of
February 28, 1978, staff immediately attempted to secure professional soil engineer-
ing services not to exceed $10,000. Each of the companies contacted, with the
exception of Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., advised they would decline to bid
and felt that the original purveyor of services (Pacific Soils) should be the appro-
priate one to perform the services which he believed was a decision reached after
consulting with their legal representatives. Thus, only the single bid of Pacific
Soils was received, in an amount not to exceed $4,900.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a way to know if something was done in error
previously by Pacific Soils so they could absorb the aforementioned cost as well.
City Manager Talley stated the only reasonable way to do that would be to secure
the services of another company, but other agencies did not want to touch the
project because they did not want to get into a litigable type of situation. From
staff's standpoint, the only way to solve the problem was to take the course of
action recommended. Mr. Talley pointed out that the work done previously was per-
formed under another ordinance, and corrective action was being sought. Pacific
Soils would perform the work and subsequently submit a report to the Council.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-164 for adoption, as recom-
mended in memorandum dated March 10, 1978, from the City Manager.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that although now he knew the work
was performed under a different ordinance, he still could not, in good conscience,
spend more money with the same people. Since one failure had occurred, although it
may not have been the fault of the original consulting engineers, he would prefer
an independent opinion.
Mayor Thom explained that he had no problem with the fee or the concept because the
work had to be performed, but he had doubts relative to what would have to be a biased
report. It was his opinion that Pacific Soils would not have any recourse but to
78-297
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March.. 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
cover up any mistakes. The potential litigation would not only involve them,
but also it would eventually come back to the City and the taxpayers. He pre-
ferred either someone independent or the City to perform the necessary services.
City Manager Talley maintained that a professional consulting firm such as Pacific
Soils would have the strongest possible incentive to be sure the work was properly
done. The Mayor agreed but reiterated if any faults in the original work were
discovered, these would be subsequently covered up.
Councilman Seymour stated that from a philosophical standpoint, that was true, but
on the other hand, if it was the feeling that there was something illegal or shoddy
about the job, the following points would have to be considered: the builder and
not the City hired the engineers originally. Thus, if that engineering company
in its certification of the job misrepresented its work or lied about it, then the
individual property owner and the City of Anaheim would have the right to proceed
against them. In his opinion, it was all conjecture as to whether the work was
performed correctly or incorrectly. With reasonable approaches to engineering
standards, the subject slopes~or any others were not designed engineering-wise to
stand up against a super disaster almost of the type that occurred due to the heavy
rains.
The Mayor clarified that his only qualm was relative to prejudicing the ultimate
litigation which was bound to result involving the City. He maintained the City
should bring in a third party or have the Engineering Division perform the work.
Councilman Seymour stated he would vote for the recommendation to have the City
perform the work, although he still believed the reason the City was recommending
that it be done at all had to be evaluated. The City had no liability for those
slopes, as stated by the City Attorney, and the Grading Ordinance and structural
standards were upheld. The motivation in recommending the proposal was to protect
public property involved (see minutes of February 28, 1978). If the City thus
engaged the subject engineers to protect public property even though they could be
involved with slope failure, it was his opinion that the City would not be any worse
off legally engaging those engineers than at present. If any additional risk or
burden was involved, the City Attorney should speak to it.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that his understanding from the City Engineer was
that the City was endeavoring to protect its interest in certain roads and easements.
Pacific Soils had registered civil engineers and engineering geologists and being
professional engineers, if they were to engage in any form of cover-up or anything
not in a professional category, they could be disciplined by respective State Boards.
As far as the City was concerned, it was hiring a registered professional engineering
firm and that should be sufficient to warrant the City's justification relative to
their capabilities.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the City did hire someone to perform the services,
would the City be admitting to some kind of liability.
Mr. Hopkins stated if the City hired the engineering firm as an independent con-
tractor, the City's liability would be less in his opinion than if someone was
hired as an agent. If an agent, then the City could be held responsible for what-
ever work they performed, as well as any errors.
78-298
_C. ity~all, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- March 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution approving terms and conditions of
a letter agreement with Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., to provide services to
evaluate slope failures in the Westridge Tract. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-164: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LETTER AGREEMENT BE25~EEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
Kott and Thom
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-164 duly passed and adopted.
175: REPORT - UTILITIES DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - RESPONSE
TO ALLEGATIONS: Mr. Ken Kees~e, Chairman of the Public Utilities Board (PUB), spoke
in answer to allegations made at the previous meeting (see minutes of February 28,
1978) by Mr. Joe White. He explained that the Board did have some problems in getting
minutes back to them on time, but they took into consideration the fact that staff
had been very cooperative and they had to handle the new Board work without any
additional help. When the PUB was established two years prior, any additional work
they required was added to the existing workload of staff. He conducted a straw
poll of the PUB members the night before and also that morning and the consensus of
opinion was that the Board was receiving the utmost cooperation from the Utilities
Department. He emphasized that the City should be extremely proud of their Utilities
Director Gordon Hoyt because he saved the City millions of dollars. He stated the
situation relative to the minutes had been rectified, but as pointed out by staff,
15 days minimum was the very earliest that minutes of the meetings could be submitted
to the Council, due to the fact that the PUB met every two weeks. They initially
received minutes in draft form which were subsequently approved or disapproved and
returned to staff for forwarding to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mr. White was authorized to speak on behalf of the
Board.
Mr. Keesee stated Mr. White spoke not on behalf of the Board, but as an individual.
However, a "gentlemen's agreement" existed, wherein if anything was to be brought
before the Council, other members of the Board were to be notified. In this instance,
the Board was not notified and most read about Mr. White's presentation to the Council
in the newspaper.
Councilman Kott first stated he always considered Mr. Hoyt praiseworthy, but from
a common sense point of view, he maintained it was difficult to approve minutes that
were four months old, due to the time lapse.
Mr. Keesee agreed and stated that he could not remember what transpired that far
back. At the time the Board was getting started, decisions had to be made quickly
and they were trying to absorb as much as possible on different projects, thus
placing an unusually large demand on staff for information. He was not trying to
cover-up for any member of staff, and there were times when certain matters arose
where it was not possible to accomplish what they wanted in a given time. The
78-299
City H~a..~.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 197.8~ 1:30 P.M.
situation had, however, been rectified and, as well, he had received minutes from
the previous Board meeting which he could study for the Thursday meeting. This is
what they had been striving for and had now accomplished. Both sides of the matter
had to be considered, and he had been in business long enough to recognize capable,
dedicated individuals who he believed deserved encouragement.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what course of action would be taken if this same situa-
tion of a Board member approaching the Council without informing the Board occurred
again.
Mr. Keesee, speaking on behalf of Mr. Hoyt, stated first as discussed at the last
Board meeting, the point was made that any member of the Board had a right to
appear before the Council as an individual taxpayer of Anaheim and voice his opinion
on anything he desired. However, they would prefer to have such a presentation
completely separated from any association with the Board whatsoever unless the Board
had discussed the matter and was aware of it.
Councilman Roth interjected and commended the PUB for the service they were performing
for the City.
Mr. Joseph White, 809 West Broadway, stated that since he had appeared before the
Council on February 28, 1978, the Board received two months of minutes, four meetings,
in less than 24 hours, and the reason he wanted them had to do with a question he
asked Mr. Hoyt on Tuesday, February 2, 1978. He wanted to know how much energy the
City received from the Nevada Power Company during the current fiscal year. Mr. Hoyt
replied none, but two weeks later, February 16, 1978, when he asked the same question,
the answer was 26 percent. When he asked when that percentage had been received, the
answer was vague and he did not believe it could be found in the minutes. Subsequently,
the Mayor made a remark relative to the matter and thereafter, a whole sheet of infor-
mation was generated. Mr. White stressed that when he asked questions, it was not
for fun, but, in fact, he wanted to know what was happening. He was also interested
in seeing if the questioned posed at the last meeting would be included in the minutes
relative to Sundesert and the discrepancy in figures; San Diego Gas & Electric indi-
cating that the City of Anaheim was into the project for $140 million, the Power
Commission stating $255 million and R. W. Beck & Associates, $233 million. Further,
a large bond payment was made in December for Nevada Power, but yet a deficit existed.
He reiterated, when he asked questions, he asked for a reason and expected the right
answers. If Mr. Hoyt was unable to answer, he should seek the answer. Mr. White
emphasized that as long as he was on the Board, he was going to ask questions. Further,
he pushed for by-laws, but the Board still had none and the "gentlemen's agreement"
mentioned was something he did not agree to. He was angry when he approached the
Council on February 28, 1978, and he did not want Mr. Keesee apologizing for him be-
cause he had planned to come to the Council and express his feelings as a private
citizen.
Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, stated it disturbed him deeply when allegations were
made that somehow information presented to the Board by him and his staff was tainted
and reflected only the single view. At the end of each Board meeting, all members
78-300
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
asked whatever questions came to mind and he or his staff answered as best they
could. Some of those answers were given spontaneously, sometimes in the "ball park",
other times correct and sometimes not correct. They answered to the best of their
ability at that point in time.
In connection with Nevada Power, when Mr. White asked the question and he (Hoyt)
answered that no power had been received, to the best of his knowledge, it was a
true statement. As it happened, some energy was received in January and a very
small amount in December. In February however, a large amount was received. When
the statement was corrected at the last Board meeting, approximately 26 percent of
the energy to which Nevada Power contracted to supply, and which the City contracted
to purchase, had been received approximately February 13, 1978. Mr. White also
mentioned that the Mayor asked for some type.of report on the matter, and if that
was so, he was not aware of it. The report prepared and given to the Board at the
last meeting was in response to a request of Mr. White. He believed that in terms
of explaining controversial discussions held at the Board to the City Council, ade-
quate explanation was always given when the matter reached the Council for a decision.
He was certainly aware of the controversy existing over power generation. When
matters were presented to the Council from the Board, he was generally the one who
explained what occurred and he explained both sides very thoroughly. He did not
believe he had misconstrued anything anyone had said nor had. any members of his staff.
Mr. Hoyt conceded that minutes were tardy and the matter was discussed at the Board
meeting prior to the February 28, 1978 Council meeting at which Mr. White appeared.
He stated at the time the reason was due to the fact that he personally made an
effort to read them because the Board was somewhat new and emotions and actions
were not always clear, thus making it difficult for someone who did not have
a thorough understanding of the situation to interpret.
Mr. Hoyt further stated that the Board was now doing a good job. It had taken a
long time for them to become educated in matters of electrical and water utilities,
but they could now speak intelligently about cost of service and equal cost of
service for every class of customer. Staff, as well, was doing a good job.
In concluding, Mr. Hoyt stated he personally felt that Mr. White's outburst was
unwarranted and came about as a result of a letter written to the Mayor. Occa-
sionally, he received letters sent to the Mayor for information but did not act
on them unless the Mayor requested him to do so. When the matter came up at the
Board meeting, he mentioned that he did see the letter, wherein Mr. Maullin, Chairman
of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, offered to come to
Anaheim to speak.
The Mayor interjected that he had listened to the subsequent'Board meeting and so
believed that something was out of context. He remembered forwarding a copy of the
letter to Mr. Hoyt, as well as giving a copy to Mr. White. He was specifically
criticizing the time lag between the time the PUB requested that the letter be sent
to Mr. Maullin inviting him to come to Anaheim and the time it took staff to submit
a draft of the motion requesting same by the Board so that it could be embodied in
the letter of invitation. He did not ask Mr. Hoyt to do anything about the letter
and he was not going to invite Mr. Maullin unless the Council and the PUB wanted him
to come. When the Board requested that the letter be sent, there was no communication
to him relative to the request and it took over a week to get a draft of the motion.
That was the main criticism.
78-301
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt replied that if there was a sense of urgency, he did not share in it and
he did not see it now, and in the normal course of events, the letter would have
gone out Friday of that same week. The Mayor stated that was the accusation, Mr.
Hoyt did not attach the importance to it that it should have been given.
Mr. Hoyt continued that Mr. Maullin would be in Anaheim to speak and representatives
of San Diego Gas & Electric would be at the next Board meeting in an attempt to
respond to Mr. White's question about the cost of Sundesert. The Energy Commission
had their idea of what cost would be, and thus, the answers might have to be obtained
through Mr. Maullin. Relative to the R. W. Beck estimate, at the point in time when
they made the estimate, they were using the SDG&E figures. It would be unrealistic
to expect that costs for large projects continuing over the years would remain static
because it would mot happen. In this case however, the estimate actually went down
from the original figure, contrary to what generally occurred.
Mr. Hoyt reiterated that staff was doing a good job for the Board and the Council,
and if there was anything anybody needed, they would be happy to assist.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if'someone else was involved that they should be hearing
from, and as well, would the Metropolitan Water District be supplying water for
the project.
Mr. Hoyt stated that Mr. Frank DeVore, Vice President of San Diego Gas & Electric,
indicated he would be present at the meeting and with him would be the Project
Manager Gary Cotton and Dr. Lou Bernath, Technical Nuclear Expert on the Project.
A discussion then followed relative to the format of the forthcoming meeting, wherein
Councilman Seymour confirmed his understanding that the meeting was not going to be
a debate, but a presentation of both sides of the question. The Mayor, however,
stated that he only invited Mr. Maullin who, in turn, indicated he would prefer to
appear at one meeting and then have whoever else the City wanted, appear at the next.
Councilman Seymour recalled that it was established at the February 28, 1978 meeting
that both sides would appear at the same meeting, and if Mr. Maullin was not willing
to meet his opposition in a format where both sides could be heard, he would not
place much credibility in what he had to offer. If that were the case, he did not
want to have the meeting. As a compromise, Councilman Roth suggested that Mr. Maullin
speak for one hour, and if he did not wish to stay and hear the other side, he could
leave after he spoke.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Seymour that if speaking on technical
subjects either side was not willing to face the other, she did not want to hear
from either party.
MOTION: In order to clarify the matter for the March 21, 1978 meeting, Councilman
Seymour moved that the format be as Councilman Roth suggested, with Mr. Maullin
speaking for one hour and the representative from SDG&E speaking for an hour, sub-
sequently opening the meeting to questions and answers from anyone who wished to
ask or answer. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Thom stated that if both participants agreed to the
subject format, he also would be agreeable, but otherwise he would not agree.
78-302
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour thereupon asked for confirmation if, in fact, the Mayor would
then follow Council's direction and cancel the meeting if both participants were
not present; the Mayor stated he would not do so because he could not guarantee
that both were willing to appear.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion setting forth that Mr. Richard Maullin
of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and a representa-
tive of SDG&E would speak approximately one hour each at the meeting set for
March 21, 1978, with a question and answer period to follow, but if less than two
participants, the meeting would be cancelled. Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon pointed out that at the February 9, 1978 meeting of
the Orange County League of Cities meeting, a resolution was presented for a vote
on Sundesert which the Anaheim City Council favored by a previous 3 to 2 vote.
However, Mayor Thom voted "no" for Anaheim, thereby doing the opposite of what the
Council had asked be done. The resolution did pass, but it would have passed
unanimously except for the Mayor's vote. He was not supposed to be voting then
for himself. He was representing Anaheim and even though he knew Anaheim had voted
affirmatively for the project, he acted contrary to Council's action.
123: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - AMENDMENT TO UTILITIES AGRERMENT NO. 7Ut-4849:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-165 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 7, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board, authorizing an
increase in the actual cost to the State of California from $21,000 to $28,527.48
for utility relocation work. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-165: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO
UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-4849 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-165 duly passed and adopted.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: (Good Shepherd Lutheran Home)
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, Application for Solicita-
tion of Charity Funds submitted by the Good Shepherd Lutheran Home for telephone
solicitation of used material to sell to defray costs of caring for the develop-
mentally disabled, March 1 through April 30, 1978, was approved. Councilman Kott
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: (Women's American 0rt)
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, Application for
Solicitation of Charity Funds submitted by Women's American Ort, for solicitation of
business ads for an ad journal to support a system of technical and vocational
school, March through April, 1978, was approved. Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
78-303
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Relative to the two foregoing requests, Councilman Kott explained that it was
his understanding at one point a Council Policy existed indicating that unless
the organization seeking permission to solicit charitable funds was based in
Anaheim, the Council would not be in favor of the application. That policy
guided his decisions in such matters, and since the subject applications clearly
stated that the organizations were not only not based in Anaheim, but also no
funds would go to Anaheim, he could not approve the request. He represented the
taxpayers of the City of Anaheim and not those outside.
REVISED PLANS - VARIANCE NO. 804: Mr. Bill Waddle, 4322 Crescent, Cypress,
working from a posted plot plan of the proposed project, explained that he had
spoken to the City of Buena Park since the last meeting before the Council (see
minutes February 21, 1978) where he already received approval for a 12-unit pro-
ject and also informed Buena Park he had reduced the project from 12 to 8 units.
In order to accomplish the reduction, he proposed to cut back two units from each
building on the rear portion, where he would instead install a pool or playground
area. Since parking seemed a main concern to the people in the area, he would
leave the same amount of parking spaces now available even through a reduction in
units. Relative to the trash, although there might be problems, he believed there
was nothing that could not be solved and he would meet with the appropriate people.
Regarding sound attenuation, the problem was due to the close proximity of the
railroad tracks. He then reiterated the problem he wished to avoid regarding
setbacks which would render it impossible for him to build since he would have less
then 500 square feet of developable property left on which to do so.
The Mayor stated that one of the items about which Mrs. Todd was most concerned
related to drainage and he noted in the staff report that the City Engineer stated
no details had been submitted regarding an underground storm drain on the northeast
portion of the property, a subject which he might now wish to address. If the Council
considered the matter favorably, they would not do so without detailed plans being
filed before service was supplied.
Mr. Waddle stated that he gave Anaheim an easement for the water drainage some time
ago; 20 feet for construction purposes with 10 feet to be returned after the line
was in place with the understanding that he would also have to meet the engineering
requirements of both Anaheim and Buena Park, whichever was the most stringent, and
the same was true relative to the cul-de-sac. When Mr. George Dietz originally
spoke to him, he stated that Anaheim would bear the cost of installing the drain
if he dedicated the land. Since that time, he agreed to split the cost after the
City's Real Property Division explained it was standard to do so. He then cited
from the plan where the drain would have to be located.
A brief discussion followed relative to parkway width requirement as questioned
by Councilman Roth; a 7-foot parkway was indicated on the revised plan and Anaheim's
City Code required 12 feet. Mr. Waddle explained that when he came to the City for
8 units in April 1975, the approved plans included a street width of 38 feet, with
a 7-foot parkway and that also had been approved by the City of Buena Park.
Miss Santalahti explained that with the modification reducing the number of units,
thus providing excessive parking on the project, conceivably the radius of the
cul-de-sac end could be increased to allow for a 12-foot sidewalk, plus parkway.
Mr. Waddle, indicated however, that would create setback problems, and he would
instead prefer to give extra parking spaces or something else so as to avoid the
problem.
78-304
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti confirmed for Councilman Roth that the City of Buena Park told
her that the revised plan, with the 7-foot parkway, was in accordance with their
standards.
In answer to Councilman Roth and at the request of the Mayor, Mrs. Joan Todd,
3260 Savanna Street, clarified that Mr. Waddle's first plan approved by the Council
consisted of a single-family residence with maid's quarters considered as 2 units,
and then he indicated he was going to propose a project at a later time of possibly
6 units which the residents basically agreed to; Mr. Waddle reiterated that 8 units
were approved in April of 1975.
The Mayor then asked Mr. Waddle if his application or documentation in Buena Park
had been modified to show a reduction from 12 to 8 units. The reason for so doing
related to the fact that the people in the saVanna Street neighborhood would be
concerned that, if Anaheim agreed to serve 8 units and Mr. Waddle had Buena Park's
permission to build 12 units, he might subsequently build the other 4 units and
get service for 12 without asking. He believed they would feel more comfortable
if the application stated 8 Bnits only.
Mr. Waddle stated that he saw no reason to waste Buena Park's time or his without
first ascertaining if he could get utility service. He would rather have had 12
units, but ali he wanted now was Anaheim to grant utilities for 8 units and to
never give him hookup for 12. Also to be considered was the fact that he would
have to come back for permission if he wanted to build 12 units.
Miss Santalahti stated it was her understanding that, in fact, if he received
utilities for 8 units now, any modification would again have to go through the
Anaheim Utilities Department and hopefully it would be denied without coming back
to the Council.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve electrical and utility hookups for
8 units, subject to detailed plans being submitted on the underground storm drain,
cul-de-sac and trash and sanitation. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Miss Santalahti broached the matter of annexation to the
City of Anaheim and explained that if the Council granted utilities, Mr. Waddle
could commence construction in Buena Park. Normally, Anaheim would want him to
sign an agreement that he would be annexing to the City and would be processing
annexation. If he annexed, then the City would have full control over any building
permits on the property.
Mr. Waddle stated the matter of annexation had been a big point all along, but all
he ever said was, if it would not hurt him and if it was of benefit to both cities,
he would annex into Anaheim. At this time, it would hurt him relative to setbacks
and having to stay with single-story units. Thus, he wanted to proceed, build and
complete his project in Buena Park and then probably annex into Anaheim. He had
looked into the matter of annexation at a time when Anaheim was attempting a new
zone change or master plan, and it was unclear which way the City would go--that
was the reason he did not start annexation proceedings.
78-305
City Hall..,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were any windows on the side of the units
facing the railroad tracks and, if so, would he stipulate to putting in extra
insulation for sound attenuation both in the walls, as well as the double windows.
Mr. Waddle stated he would have to have windows on that side and he stipulated
to making sound attenuation measures although he was not certain what that would
entail. If he had to do it to make the unit soundproof, he would do whatever was
necessary.
Mrs. Joan Todd interjected and was given permission to speak relative to annexation
before a vote was taken on the motion. She first referred to the fact that Mr.
Waddle stated he would annex if both cities felt it was the best thing to do. At
the last City Council meeting she attended in Buena Park, they asked if they could
give it to the City of Anaheim. Anaheim als0 indicated it would be best to be
annexed to Anaheim before service was provided. The residents on Savanna Street
felt that since sewer lines were already in the street, dead ending at the subject
parcel, and only the residents who lived on the street were paying for that line,
Mr. Waddle would basically no% have to pay for the sewer line, specifically the
portion in the street. They maintained he should be required to annex into the
City, and it was her understanding that before Mr. Waddle could request utilities,
he would have to sign a Utility Agreement of Annexation, The agreement went on
to state that the utility would be extended, the property shall be developed according
to the standards of Anaheim and that the subject property must conform to the Zoning
Code.
The Mayor stated that first Mr. Waddle would build and then annex into the City
which project would come in as a non-conforming use and from that point on, would
be subject to all City standards. It was obvious that he would not annex before
building because otherwise he would not be allowed to build it in Anaheim as
proposed.
Mrs. Todd reiterated it was her understanding that Mr. Waddle would not be issued
a building permit in Buena Park until Anaheim granted approval and that was what
was being done today; the point being, it was immaterial whether Anaheim made the
hookup or not, but Mr. Waddle merely had to go to Buena Park and say that Anaheim
granted utilities, and, thus, he wanted his permit in order to start construction.
She wanted assurance that he would comply with the conditions imposed by Anaheim.
Miss Santalahti stated that when Mr. Waddle applied for his building permit, Buena
Park would expect documentation stating he could get utilities. Anaheim would not
release utilities until the City Council agreed because, in this case, the project
would not comply with Anaheim development standards. If it did comply, Anaheim
would approve and indicate that annexation was being processed and development was
in full accord with City Codes. If the City Council approved the plan as indicated
subject to the documentation on the storm drain, cul-de-sac design, and trash and
sanitation, at that point the Utilities Division would clear the utilities connection
to the Buena Park Building Department. The Engineering Department would then view
the final plans for their approval.
Mrs. Todd requested that they see the plans at that time also. The Mayor stated that
if they were filed with the Engineering Department, they would be a public document.
78-306
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Relative to sound attenuation, Miss Santalahti commented that the plan complied
with the City of Buena Park standards, but they did not have the same exterior
sound limitations as Anaheim. However, the interior limits were slightly more
lenient.
A vote was then taken on Councilman Seymour's motion clarified as follows: Approve
the request to.serve 8 units with utilities subject to the submittal of detailed
plans on the underground storm drain, engineering plans of the cul-de-sac design,
and trash and sanitation to meet Anaheim Code, as well as stipulations relative to
sound attenuation. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting 'to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-28: Application by Arthur N. and
Ruth M. Etz, for a change in ~one from CL to RM-1200 on property located on the
east side of Beach Boulevard, north of Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-15, declared the
subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
and, further, granted Reclassification No. 77-78-28, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Beach Boulevard as required
by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications
on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
'2. That street lighting facilities along Beach Boulevard shall be installed as
required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard
specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or
that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. ~-Lat the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Beach Boulevard for tree planting
purposes.
4~ That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
78-3O7
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
9. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 2
of Exhibits 1-3, and that any modifications thereto shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted
by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless
said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or such
further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The action of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. B. A. Smith and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Councilman Roth noted the reason the Planning Commission's decision was appealed
related to a complaint involving an easement on the property. He referred to a
letter dated December 12, 1977, from the City Engineer and wanted to know with
the five recommendations contained therein, if the situation had thus been corrected.
Miss Santalahti stated that the opposition was still concerned with specific design
even though the developer in his revised plans provided for a 60-foot easement for
either vehicular access or walkways which was satisfactory to the City. She be-
lieved that to be the only reason for opposition presently existing.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Smith or his representative was present and desirous of being
heard.
Mr. David Grant, attorney for Mr. Smith, first addressed his initial comment to
Councilman Roth's query. He stated that the recommendations made by the City
Engineer had not been accepted in any respect. A dedication had not been offered,
accepted or made a condition of the approval, and that was one of the specific
issues relative to the appeal. Mr. Smith owned the property east of the subject
site which he pointed to from a posted plan of the property and the subject 60-foot
easement (Lynrose Drive) was used for access from that property to Beach Boulevard.
The site had been developed for approximately 10 years into a number of separate
apartment buildings, 4 units to a building. The problem Mr. Smith saw revolved
around the maintenance on Lynrose Drive. There would be a vast increase in
vehicular and pedestrian traffic with no setback requirement normally imposed
78-30~
~Cjty..H_all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
by the City for dedicated streets, thus causing maintenance and liability
problems. The proposed project would increase the general need for vehicular
access and automobile and pedestrian access safety in the whole area, congesting
the present situation, but the City decided they would not require dedication.
They were, therefore, proposing that it was not only reasonable, but also almost
mandated by City Codes that reasonable dedication requirements be imposed as a
condition to the project so that the street could be maintained in a style and
fashion that would accommodate the needs of all taxpayers in the area who had
been using the street for 10 years. Even now problems existed due to congestion.
Mr. Grant then clarified which property was owned by Mr. Smith which also included
that to the east of the subject property. He further stated that the City had the
power to request and require reasonable dedication as a condition of approval to
the reclassification. He then cited three sections from the Anaheim Municipal
Code which he maintained were overlooked by the City, although not purposefully.
Dedication as they viewed it was necessary for a development that would increase
the need and which would impose the burden on private property. In the proceedings
of the City Planning Commission, Mr. Grant stated there was massive opposition as
reflected in the 70 letters received opposing the project basically because of the
effect it would have on the easement and their access, as well as that of their
children walking along the street. They wanted a greater setback and a City
improved and required street.
In summary, Mir. Grant stated the foregoing were the primary reasons for opposition
on that one specific issue. They also took issue with the fact that the project
satisfied the General Plan requirement of medium density compared to the property
of Mr. Smith. He contended the project was much more dense than other existing
in the area, and it did not appear to be a medium density project, particularly con-
sidering the concentrated effect it would have on Lynrose Drive. He believed it to
be maximum concentrated density for that easement.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the subject property was developed in a commercial
manner, what impact it would have from Mr. Smith's standpoint.
Mr. Grant stated that the same dedication requirements should be imposed, and it
did not matter how the property was developed. The issue still involved the use
of the street and the impact it would have on citizens living on adjoining properties
and their children. It was presently a private street and should be dedicated. Mr.
Smith had offered to dedicate his easement portion to the public. He reiterated that
the City had the power and duty to impose such a reasonable condition.
Mr. John Zylstra, 2331 West Lincoln, Agent for Mr. Etz and the proposed developer,
stated that the zoning change requested was consistent with the City's General Plan,
and the subject property was surrounded by and adjacent to residential-type properties.
Mr. Zylstra then presented photographs showing other examples of residential-type
properties already developed along Beach Boulevard in the near vicinity of the
subject site. The opposition was not to the actual zoning, but to the site plan
itself. He then showed the original site plan presented to the Planning Commission,
including garages which allowed cars to back into the easement. Three public hearings
had been held before the Planning Commission, and because of Mr. Smith's objections,
they revised the site plan to the current plan allowing the street width along the
easement. They would also be installing sidewalks and the easement would thus have
all the aspects of a regular standard City street with the exception of dedication.
78-309
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Zylstra continued that the Planning Commission had before them a petition
from Mr. Smith and his tenants within his apartment complex adjacent to the
subject property to the east. He then submitted a petition signed by the re-
maining five adjacent property owners, all recommending approval of the requested
change in zone. The main point of contention was the nature of the easement.
Mr. Etz owned the entire piece of property and had paid taxes on it for a number
of years, but had difficulty in obtaining the proper type of development because
of the continual opposition from Mr. Smith. What was now being proposed was a
residential use most compatible with Mr. Smith's use providing a streetscape,
sidewalks and all the things that would be helpful to him.
Mr. Zylstra further explained that, in essence, Mr. Smith was holding a non-
exclusive easement through that property which meant they also had the right to
use the easement, but Mr. Smith did not seem to think so. Relative to the dedica-
tion requirements as set forth by City Engineer Maddox, the conditions imposed by
the Planning Commission required that they satisfy the Fire Department regarding
fire plugs, engineering requirements regarding street development and sidewalks,
and that sidewalks be installed along Beach Boulevard, as well as street lighting.
He reiterated the main problem was in the dedication of the private easement to
a public street. What Mr. Smith did not disclose, however, was the fact that of
the 73 units on his parcel, only approximately one-half were, served through the
subject easement. Another easement was available to the south, going to Ball
Road, and garages for one-half the units were served with that easement.
As previously stated, they felt their request was consistent with the General
Plan and adjacent land uses, and the proposed use was approved in lieu of commer-
cial use by a majority of adjacent property owners, and it had been approved by
the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith had not shown any real hardship through the
proposed use. and the project would provide jobs in housing, and taxes for the City.
They maintained it would be an unfair burden on the taxpayers of the City to pay
for the maintenance of a private street within that complex. The items referred
to by Mr. Smith's attorney relating to the Code had to do with frontage streets
and not internal private streets. They would comply with all things necessary
relative to Beach Boulevard which was the frontage street, including trees, lighting,
curb, sidewalks, etc. One other item that developed because of the recent rains,
was ponding at the entry of Lynrose Drive, thus requiring that development take
place in accordance with City Engineering standards, which would perhaps require
a vertical realignment of the private street or a drainage standard to relieve the
water situation existing presently.
In concluding, Mr. Zylstra stated that they complied with all of the requirements
of the RM-1200 zone without asking for any variances and requested that the Council
follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the proposed project.
Councilman Roth questioned Mr. Zylstra relative to the garage arrangement which in-
dicated most of the traffic generated would use Lynrose Drive.
Mr. Zylstra explained that there were actually two access points which he pointed to
from the site plan which were about evenly split relative to the number of units
utilizing them for ingress and egress.
78-310
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
A brief discussion followed wherein Miss Santalahti clarified that the easement
was 60 feet in width and the overall dedicated width was also 60 feet, but it would
be improved differently.
Mr. Zylstra also confirmed for Councilman Roth that from their standpoint, the
problem was not that they did not want to spend the money to improve the ease-
ment, making it a dedicated street. He explained that the actual street paved
area was the same as City requirements, and they would have to recap and resurface
the street. They would be serving 64 units, Mr. Smith approximately 30. They
would also be responsible for maintaining the street, and he emphasized it would
be in their best interest to continue to do so since they were going to be con-
structing expensive apartments. He reiterated the street was a standard City
street in all respects with the exception of setbacks of buildings behind the 60-
foot width.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the proposed apartments were for adults only.
Mr. Zylstra stated they consisted of 58 one-bedroom and 8 two-bedrooms and there
were no limitations as to adults or singles, but the number of bedrooms usually
limited the number of children.
Miss Santalahti then clarified for Councilman Kott that the difference between the
private street and public street did involve street lights and fire hydrants, but
the applicant was going to provide those in any case. The City, however, could not
be responsible for the maintenance of the private street.
Mr. Zylstra then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that their objection to dedicating
the street revolved around the setback that would be required if it were a public
street, and thus the units would be compressed to the point where it would be very
difficult to provide an adequate central green area. They would also maintain the
street continually and relative to having documentation concerning the maintenance,
they had attempted to meet with Mr. Smith to work out an agreement. Thus far, Mr.
Smith indicated no interest in meeting with them. Mr. Zylstra was of the opinion
that once the approval was given by the City Council, they would be able to work
something out.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if in some way the City could be assured that
street maintenance would not become a problem and that it would be maintained in
perpetuity.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the subject easement was non-exclusive and
considering the expensive apartments to be constructed as previously stated, the
owner would want to maintain an adequate roadway. Being a private roadway, however,
the City would have no obligation to maintain it. There was no way to guarantee
such maintenance, but presumably the owners would want to keep it in good condition
for the use of their tenants.
Mr. Zylstra stated it would be the same situation as with any other internal street
in any other apartment development. If streets were not adequately maintained, there
would be less income from renters, as well as less desirable tenants. If the apartments
were eventually sold, the motivation would be the same for the new owners to maintain
a desirable apartment complex.
78-311
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Joseph Narduli, 17822 17th Street, Suite 202, also representing the Etz's,
stated that in retrospect, the major objection in the past by Mr. Smith had
been to the health and safety of the residents of both the proposed development
and those living in Lynrose Manor, which was owned by Mr. Smith. He maintained
that the additional 25-foot driveway adjacent to the north property line would
adequately handle the additional vehicular traffic generated, as well as the fact
that there would be no adjacent parking within the easement itself. With the
addition of sidewalks and other improvements that were conditions imposed by the
City Planning Commission, they would be improving the easement rights Mr. Smith
enjoyed. The law was clear that relative to a non-exclusive easement, as long as
the fee holder did nothing inconsistent or that unreasonably interfered with that
easement, he too could use it as much or to the same degree as the easement holder.
George C. Hallstein, 17332 Irvine, Tustin, also representing Mr. and Mrs. Etz,
stated that he was their friend and associate since 1951. The subject property
was acquired in 1968 and taxes averaging $4,200 to $4,500 a year had been paid
since then. They had maintained the easement and the streets up to the present
time. He also maintained that the argument of the opposition that the easement
and vehicular traffic would be detrimental was merely a stand-off to halt the
development of the property. They had constant problems with Mr. Smith in trying
to negotiate an adjustment of the easement to fit various types of developments.
Each time however, Mr. Smith refused to discuss issues and had even blatantly
installed fences along the easement which was against the law. The property was
fee owned by Mr. Etz and Frances M. Verdonch, and not Mr. Smith, according to
Transamerica Title Company when he searched the title approximately three months
prior.
Mr. Hallstein then relayed incidences where Mr. Smith prevented vehicular access
across the property during the sale of Christmas trees and pumpkins by a church
group who had made arrangements with the Etz's to use the property during the
Halloween period and Christmas season. He then submitted photographs showing the
fence that was installed and also a letter dated February 22, 1978, stating that
legal action would be instituted against Mr. Smith if the fencing was not removed,
which letter did precipitate fence removal. Although it was a minor issue, Mr.
Hallstein believed it pointed out to a greater degree how Mr. Smith had been trying
to prevent any type of development over the years.
Relative to the dedication of the street, when they purchased the property in 1968,
they approached the City along with the previous developer concerning dedication
and were turned down because it was a private street and there was no need for dedi-
cation since it only served one apartment house to the rear. He did not believe
that any dedication would be accepted by the City even today, and the opposition was
bringing the matter up to stall the project with the hope that he could kill the
present plan so that eventually they could not develop the property at another
time. They had negotiated an agreement with the present developer in order to
develop the property for the best use for the present time for apartment houses,
since there was a shortage of apartments in Anaheim and Orange County. Thus,
the ownership had done its best to meet the needs of society and the public at large.
78-312
~ity Hall.~ ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In summation, Mr. Grant first stated that he was surprised at the personal
innuendos that had been made which he felt were inappropriate. He then clarified
that the property owner was, in fact, Mr. Smith and his wife, and the property
was in Mrs. Smith's maiden name (Verdonch) which was the one cited by Mr. Hallstein.
Mr. Grant maintained there was an easy way to assure maintenance of the property
into the future and that was through dedication by the person causing the extreme
congestion and need. A second method would be to have a recorded agreement be-
tween the two parties, which agreement would be a condition of approval. It would
require the owner of the parcel now owned by the applicant to maintain the street
in accordance with City requirements. Thus, it would be a covenant which would
run with the land. It would be enforceable and reasonable and a method by which
the Council could be assured that the property would be maintained in accordance
with the representation made. If dedication was not deemed appropriate, then a
record agreement would be a viable alternative. Mr. Grant continued that Mr. Smith
never opposed any development, either before the Planning Commission or the City
Council. It was not and should not be a vexatious matter and it was unfortunate
that it had grown into such a'situation. If the development were allowed and the
burdening of the easement permitted, their easement rights would be depreciated
to some extent. The easement to Mr. Smith and his property stipulated that he had
an easement for ingress and egress for over 60 feet--it did not say it was exclusive
or non-exclusive. They were not contending that he was the only one who could use
it pursuant to the document as that was not a settled question. What was settled
was the fact that his easement could not be burdened, surcharged or interfered
with, and the City should not be a party to a plan that would so congest the street
or interfere with rights of persons living there for 10 years. It was suggested
that the street would be built in accordance with all City conditions and require-
ments. If that were so, then the applicant should accept all the conditions set
forth by the City Engineer. Those requirements, along with the maintenance sugges-
tions he made, would make the street a lawful street of the City, protective of the
health and safety of its citizens. If they wanted to build in accordance with all
dedication requirements, that too would be acceptable.
Councilman Roth stated the difference between the dedicated street and the easement
was that the dedicated street would require the developer to increase the setback
and he did not wish to do so. Traffic problems in the area would remain the same
whether it was a public or a private street.
Mr. Grant stated that the setback would provide a more aesthetic view corridor
type effect, which he maintained represented what the City would like to see
developed.
Mr. Zylstra stated they would not object to a maintenance agreement on the street
and felt they would adequately light the street. Thus, there was no great disagree-
ment. As stated, the main problem relative to a dedicated street would be the
building setback, and they would have to sacrifice a large amount of land with a
150-foot setback from the residential area relative to building height. The green
areas they were providing were more than adequate, and they wanted to maintain
them, but it would be difficult to do so if any additional setbacks were required.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
78-313
C__ity Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project will
have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general commercial
and medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initial
study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts and, therefore, is exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Conncilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-166 for adoption, authorizing the
preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested and find-
ing the development consistent with the City'.s General Plan, subject to City
Planning Commission recommendations, as well as the stipulation by the applicant
that a maintenance agreement be entered into with Mr. Smith.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Thom noted that if Mr. Smith did not make himself
available, there would never be a maintenance agreement, and thus, they could not
have the zoning.
Councilman Roth thereupon eliminated the requirement for a maintenance agreement.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if there was no maintenance agreement, who
could take action if the street was not adequate, and as well, questioned the trash
situation.
Miss Santalahti stated if an outright hazard existed, then the City could force
paving of the street, but generally speaking, those kinds of problems did not occur
very often. Both Sanitation and Zoning addressed trash collection problems and
trash enclosures had to be provided under zoning in any case. Complaints received
relative to private streets were usually received from condominiums where individual
property owners were involved. It was not usual to hear from those in apartment
projects because management responsibilities were very clear.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (77-78-28, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-166 duly passed and adopted.
78-314
HALL, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -March 14~19_Z8_~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520 (REV~ NOo i) AND EIR NOo 211:
~.p~>lJ. cation by Anaheim Hills, Inc., to establish an 18-lot RS-HS-22,000 zoned
~ubd~vision on property located at the northeasterly corner of Avenida de
%;~ntiago and Hidden Canyon Road.
Die ~il.iny P~anning Commission determined that draft EIR No. 211 to be in compliance
~ the California Environmental Quality Act and the City and State EIR Guidelines
an~ based upon such information, certified EIR No. 211 and, further, approved
?entstive Tract No. 8520 (Revision No. 1) subject to the following conditions:
~ ~hat should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
~ubdJvision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2~ I'hat all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities°
~ Fhat prior to the introduction of an ordinance, a final tract map of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded
in. the office of the Orange County Recorder.
4~ That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Couhcil apprOval of the
~inal tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and
restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
5o ~hat street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
6~ That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to tbe City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees~ as determined to be appropriate by
~he City Council~ said ~ees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
7. Ybat drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
~'he City Engineer° If~ in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is
requ~.~ed to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted
between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities
i~ave 0een insta.lled and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the
~ity that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15tho Necessary
'~igh~'-o~-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or
the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs
~ which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading
c~oerationso The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient
~o ~rry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property
~o u~'~imate disposal as approved by the City Engineer~ Said drainage fac~!ities
~i be the first item of construction and shall be mompleted and be f!unctional
~zoughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate
poi~t of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy
perm~ts~ D~ainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the
~evelopers of said property upon their request.
~!~ That gra.ding, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be con-
Cucte~ in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from
~h~ project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from
or ~']owing through this project.
78-315
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 15~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
9. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tentative
tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be subject to precise
design considerations and approval of the City Engineer.
10. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
11. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
12. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the petitioner shall make some
provision, acceptable to the City Council, for landscaping and maintenance of the
slopes within and/or created by the development of this property.
13. That the minimum design speed for Avenida de Santiago shall be 25 miles per
hour.
14. That all structures shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements
of the City of Anaheim Fire Zone No. 4 and approved by the Fire Department.
15. That firebreaks shall be constructed subject to the review and approval of the
City of Anaheim Fire Department.
16. That the developer of subject tract shall enter in a special facilities agree-
ment with the City for water facilities in the High Elevation System as required by
Rule 15B of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations prior to approval of a
final tract map, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
17. That prior to approval of a final tract map, a combination pedestrian walkway
and equestrian and hiking trail consisting of decomposed granite or a similar
City-approved material shall be provided on one side of Avenida de Santiago in
accordance with the approved Equestrian and Hiking Trails Element of the Anaheim
General Plan.
18. That prior to approval of a final tract map, acceptable vehicular access shall
be provided to Lot No. 17.
19. In accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the
initial sale of residential homes in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the
seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim
General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject
tract.
20. That minimum street lighting consisting of safety lighting approved by the
City Traffic Engineer and the Electrical Division of the Public Utilities Depart-
ment may be constructed subject to a bond being posted to guarantee installation
of complete street lighting at any time during the two-year period following
recordation of the final tract map, if such lighting is determined to be necessary
for the health, safety and welfare of the residents in subject tracts.
An appeal of the Planning Commission's actions was filed by Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
cant or Appiicant~ s Agen~ '::~--~ ·
:~esenting Anaheim Hi] is, Inr:
~"7~ ' r. ract was before the City ~- : ~:~
~;_'~.' t~ey inadvertently did not ,~p::
~'.~'_:~, ~ the final map which expi're~-
.... ~'~'~ a~d they had also been through the Piaun:i~.,g .~._
~ .-~.~cval was given. Anaheim Hills howe~?~: ~;~'
:~tSons attached to the tract dealing. ,~ ~
~ '~ :~:~ a request with the City Counci~
~ ~': !,terns. He continued that the
>~= Leneral Plan included a trail, i~> ~ .
...... was added to the plan at the time when
the rzdgeline along the highest point within the City above Serrano, was contem-
plated as equestrian lots. Since that was no longer their plan, they did not
believe the trails should be required nor was it desirable in the project. Recog-
nizing that an amendment to the Trails Element would be in order, they suggested
that the trail and sidewalk not be required as the Trails Element was amended
to eliminate the requirements.
l~ the absence of any direction to the contrary, the conventional City subdivision
-;car~d9rds would require standard street lighting within the tract. However, this
~: ¢~-~22,000 zoned project at the same density comparable to the Mohler Drive,
,~:-:.;fptus Drive, Country Hill and Peralta Hills area tracts where street lights
,~ere not required. They maintained there were sound environmental reasons for
them not being installed, basically because of the prominent vista the lighting
would have on the ridgeline, along with the glare problem that had not yet been
mitigated with the light standard used in the Canyon. Recognizing that the Council
was concerned when they filed a similar request the prior year, they were proposing
the same type of condition that was required on three other tracts at Canyon Rim
Road and Fairmont Boulevard. They would post a bond guaranteeing that if within
two years from recording of the final tract map, the City Council determined that
street lights should be installed in response to residents' requests, Anaheim Hills
would be required to install them. Their consumer studies'indicated that would
not be the case, but the posting of a bond would give the City assurance if residents
indicated their tract was short-changed. Basically, that was the nature of the
A,~aheim Hills proposal and if the Council concurred, they would suggest language
~i~a~ would be adequate to effect those conditions.
,.;~encc t]rt then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood the location of the
· ~:~ ~r(o.o trai.] presently in the vicinity of the proposed project, that being
· '~:~ L~,~r~i Trail,. running along the Avenida de S~ntiago rJdg~l~ne,~ _
~- r :~'~¢2/(el to Serrano Avenue, following the
~ '~. They did not propose to elimina~,:
~:zz: graded, as well as the sidewalk ~ ,~:
~ ar):on Road to Serrano to conBect ~[]~
'.:~ment. That was the original trail ~,.<~,w~...~
3:mthern California Edison easement ~:,~?.:~
:~.'gaheim Hills property and the Irvine Ranch desig:aed to g~:t
'~5:~den Canyon Road, down across Serrano and down into Eastridge
did not propose to eliminate that trail, bu~ the Santiagc
78-3]7
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Lateral was designed as a convenience trail to serve the equestrian user of that
tract. As indicated, they already had a plan recorded restricting the keeping of
horses within the tract because they did not want to have stables or corrals along
the ridgeline.
Councilman Seymour asked if the Master Plan of Trails was not amended to preclude
the trail, would Anaheim Hills then install the trail.
Mr. Bettencourt then stated they would install the trail in that case. He further
stated that the Trails Committee appeared mixed on the matter, but Anaheim Hills
was confident that the only reason the trail existed in the first place was to
serve those lots at the time when they were considered as equestrian lots'. They
did not want to do anything inconsistent with the General Plan, and HACMAC deferred
to the Trails Committee on that subject since it was in their purview. There were
some who believed they should be forced to put horses on the property, but he
reiterated they would be right along the ridgetop.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be concerned if the trail would stop and
then start again. Although she realized that was not the case in this instance,
she wanted it to be very clearly understood.
Mr. Bettencourt explained if the trail were implemented in Tract No. 8520 and
adjacent Tract No. 7587, both presently ended in temporary cul-de-sacs, and the
trails would lead nowhere. If they were required to install them, there were
34 lots in Tract 7587 where the trail would go to a dead-end on the ridge, and
there was no public trail in the area enabling access beyond that point. The
same was true of Tract 8520 which would pass in front of the reservoir to a
dead-end. Although HACMAC did not want to get involved in the question of the
trail, they did endorse, in December, the street light request.
Miss Santalahti explained that if the Trails Element was amended, Anaheim Hills
would not provide the trail, but if amended, they would be required to provide it
prior to recordation. The trails amendment would have to go through a public
hearing and the matter would come back to both the Planning Commission and the
Council, as well as HACMAC and everyone else concerned for input.
Mr. Bettencourt stated the process just described would occur after the time the
tract had to be approved. If the tract was accepted with the Planning Commission's
recommendation that a trail be included and the plan subsequently amended, it would
not grant them the right to unilaterally delete the trail simply because the General
Plan would be amended at a later date. On the other hand, it would keep the option
open of requiring the trail if they were not successful in convincing the Planning
Commission and then the Council that the Trails Element should be amended.
Miss Santalahti stated that Mr. Bettencourt proposed revised wording on one condi-
tion. She had reviewed the wording and it presented no problem; it merely clarified
to a greater extent the conditions of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bettencourt then read the proposed revised wording on Condition No. 17 relative
to sidewalks and trails:
"That prior to recording of the final tract map, the subdivider shall guarantee to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, installation of a combina-
tion pedestrian walkway and equestrian and hiking trail on one side of Avenida de
78-~31 8
--City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1.978~ 1:30 P.M.
Santiago, consisting of decomposed granite or similar City approved material.
If the approved equestrian and hiking trails element of the Anaheim General
Plan is amended to eliminate said trail, then no trail or sidewalks shall be
required."
City Attorney Hopkins stated that although he had not reviewed any written
documentation, the public statement just given by Mr. Bettencourt sounded
satisfactory to him.
In concluding, Mr. Bettencourt stated there was comparable wording on the street
lighting that was reconstructed from earlier street lighting conditions which the
City Council had approved if Mr. Hopkins found those as a satisfactory assurance;
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that they would be satisfactory to him.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern relative to the street lighting, specifically
in the area of safety where the Police Department requested such lighting. If the
project was constructed without lighting and subsequently it was determined to be
necessary because the Police could not service the area without such lighting, she
wanted to know what then would happen.
Mr. Bettencourt explained that the proposed conditions would,allow the City Council
to make a determination within two years that lighting had to be installed for the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Both the Planning Commission and HACMAC
agreed with Anaheim Hills on a more subdued lighting plan for Hidden Canyon Road
which involved about 50 percent of the typ~.cal lighting because a low density area
was involved. A situation would then exist where other areas in that zone would
not require any form of street lighting.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CERTIFICATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council finds that potential project generated
individual and cumulative adverse impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level
by Conformance with City plans, policies and ordinances and draft EIR No. 211 is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City and State EIR
Guidelines and, therefore, does hereby certify EIR No. 211. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520 (REV. NO. 1): On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilman Kott, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improve-
ment, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council
approved said Tentative Map subject to the foregoing conditions recommended by the
City Planning Commission, with an amendment to Condition Nos. 17 and 20, as stipu-
lated to by the applicant. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, waiver of sidewalk
and street lighting standards for Tract No. 8520 was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
78-319
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
1. 118: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: The following claim was denied and referred
to City staff:
a. Claim submitted by Fred R. Hunter for reasonable~attorney fees for medical
and loss of wage earnings purportedly collected for the City. (Re: Officer Leff
injury on May 7, 1977)
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 173: Controller of the State of California, report of revenues to be apportioned
through June 20, 1979, from Highway Users Taxes, Motor Vehicle License Fees, Highway
Carriers' Uniform Business License Tax and Off-Highway Motor Vehicle License Fees.
b. 173/175: Before the PUC Application No. '57697 of Michael A. Kadletz dba Goodtime
Tours & Co., for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to extend existing
service pick-up area and to offer two variations of existing sightseeing tour autho-
rity between points in Orange County on one hand and Palm Springs on the other hand.
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of February 22 and March 1, 1978.
d. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of February 9, 1978.
e. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of February 23, 1978.
f. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of February 14, 1978.
g. 107/175: Monthly report for February 1978 - Building Division and Customer
Service Division.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: YORBA SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: Councilman Kott questioned
where the funding was coming from to pay for the Change Order.
City Engineer Maddox explained that the funding was to be expended from the Electrical
Budget.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, Change Order No. 1 in
the amount of $10,603, bringing the original contract price to $77,781, was approved,
as recommended by the City Engineer; Jenkins Construction Company, Contractor.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-167
through 78R-169, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-167: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Kraemer Partners;
Albin A. Johnson, et ux.; Elizabeth Wiley)
78-320
~Hall.~ Azlaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-168: 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: BROADWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT,
W/O ADAMS STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-4309-708-16-0000.
{Hardy& Harper, Inc.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-169: 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: EUCLID STREET STREET
IMPROVEMENT, BALL ROAD TO CERRITOS AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
13-4309-745-16-0000; 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 AUTHO-
RIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened April 13, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-167 through 78R-169, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9899: Developer, H & H Development of San Gabriel;
Tract located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Dale Street, containing
! RM-4000 proposed zoned lot.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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.
9899, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 7, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
i70: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9981: Developer, H & H Development of San Gabriel;
Tract located on the east side of Loara Street, north of Chapman Avenue, containing
I PdV~-4000 proposed zoned lot.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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.
9981, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 7, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10102: Developer, Northwoods Construction Company of
Orange; Tract located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, east of Euclid Street,
containing 1 RM-4000 proposed zoned lot.
78-321
City Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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.
10102, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 7, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 3838: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3838 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3838: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
18.41.062.011 OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.41, SECTION 18.44.062.011 OF TITLE 18,
CHAPTER 18.44, AND SECTION 18.48.062.011 OF TITLE 1~, CHAPTER 18.48 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD RELATING
TO ZONING. (eliminate height restrictions by egcluding those properties which are
under resolutions of intent to commercial or multiple-family residential zones)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3838 duly passed and adopted.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3839: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3839 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3839: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
18.03.070 AND 18.03.080 OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.03.0F TME ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO ZONING.
(allowing individual Council Members to initiate review of Planning Commission
decisions on zoning petitions)
ORDINANCE NOS. 3840 THROUGH 3843: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3840
through 3843, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3840: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(86), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3841: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-55(11), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3842: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-65, RS-5000, Tract 9960)
ORDINANCE NO. 3843: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-14, CL)
150: "ACTION TRAIL" - BROOKHURST PARK: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was present
at the dedication of the Action Trail on Wednesday, March 8, 1978. The idea of
an Action Trail was a very unique and innovative one and based on the turn-out at
the dedication, from young people at Brookhurst Junior High SchoOl to senior
citizens, she believed there would be heavy usage of the trail. One of the most
outstanding aspects of the project was the minimal cost of approximately $2,000.
The project would be watched closely and if successful, other such projects could
be implemented in other parks.
78-:3.22
,:~:~ H~a__ll~ Anaheim, Caiifornia- COUNCIL MINUTES -March 14~. 1978~ l g~3~_?_._.M.~
~:':~ FORMATION OF'AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Councilman Seymour ~a
~vred to a letter dated March 7, 1978, from the President of the Anahe±m
3ommerce relative to a proposed Economic Development Corporation in orde'r to
~pYement the City's Economic Development program. He reviewed the plan and
.~Lsidered it to be sound, and he, therefore, offered a motion that the City
a~.;~rse the plan and direct the City Manager to work with the Chamber of Commerc~
finalize specifics and ascertain what might be necessary to carry out ~he ~rogram~
Loancilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
~;eiore a vote was taken, Councilman Kott staf~d that he personally would like to
private organization such as the Chamber of Commerce carry out a program as
'.~roposed, rather than a government entity. Thus, he was in favor of the proposal°
vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
?RESENCE OF COUNCIL CANDIDATES IN CITY O~FICES: Mayor Thom explained that last
Tuesday, March 7, 1978, after the Council meeting, a discussion took place in the
City Manager's office between, Councilmen Roth and Kott. City Manager Talley~ how~,
a~er, was not present in his office since he was out of town conducting City
!~siness. The discussion revolved around support for a Council candidate, and
'~aile there was nothing wrong with such a discussion, he thought it unusual and
improper that a Council candidate, Fred Brown, and Mr. Art Hasselbrink, were in
~he anti-Chamber of the office causing City employees to wonder what was trans-
~iring. He thus questioned the propitiousness of such an occurrence taking place
in City Hall, particularly in the City Manager's office which could lead one to
~elieve that it was sanctioned by the Council. Although Mr. Talley was not present~
:t still gave some kind of credence that a Council candidate, one preferred by a
group called VOTE, had an inside track or preference to come and go as he pleased
?rom the business areas of the City, conducting a political campaign when other
Council candidates did not have that type of access or ability.
He had asked Councilman Kott what transpired and was told that many things were
6iscussed, one being Mr. Brown. Councilman Kott, however, advised Councilman Roth
~a~ although he understood his proposal, he was not going to have any part in
endorsing the candidate and that was the extent of it. It was generally a very
~ncommittal type of meeting.
In concluding, the Mayor stated he would like to have a "gentlemen's agreement"
among the members of the Council that promoting Council candidates be done in
the Council Chamber in an open forum instead of the backroom intimating some type
of conspiracy.
f. ouncilman Roth responded first by stating that he did not see anybody waiting for
~.im or Councilman Kott, either going into or leaving the City Manager's office and
~acondly, the discussion involved generalities. It was not intended to obtain an
~ndorsement for Mr. Brown. There was nothing to the conversation and there was
nothing to hide. He believed Mr. Brown to be a fine young man and was open in his
~pport of him. He then mentioned the Mayor's reference to VOTE and clarified that
~e was not a member of the Board of Directors or Executive Committee and he sat in
(~o executive sessions of that Committee. At times he, too, was as amazed as the
~yor relative to some of the things being done by the organization with which he did
78-323
_C. ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
not agree. The Mayor was reading something into the meeting that was not there.
Councilman Kott asked him if he wanted to stay after the Council meeting because
he had a question to ask. Councilman Kott confirmed that was so, as well as the
fact that he saw no one waiting outside the City Manager's office.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion.
Adjourned: 4:14 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK