1978/10/2478-1424
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS: James Ruth
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Bob Kelly
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an invocation, the Mayor asked for a moment of
silence.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by the Mayor and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"National Diabetes Month in Anaheim" - November 1978.
The proclamation was accepted by Sheila Hardy, Assistant Field Director of
the National Diabetes Foundation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was adopted
by the City Council and presented to Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation
and the Arts Department, and his staff for being selected the National Gold Medal
winner for 1978 for excellence in park and recreation management.
Mr. James Ruth introduced several members of his staff, Dick Kamphefner, Jack
Kudron and Lloyd Trapp who made a great contribution to the Department's activities,
culminating in the National award. Mr. Trapp then presented the plaque that had
been received which the Mayor suggested be displayed at various locations before
its final placement in the new City Hall.
Mr. Ruth extended his appreciation on behalf of his staff to the City Council
who made the improvements possible through their support, the City Manager and
his staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the community at large.
Mayor Seymour stated they were extremely proud of Mr. Ruth and his staff in light
of the national recognition.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week.
78-1425
!~y Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,926,246.69, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - FAIRMONT BOULEVARD FLOOD DAMAGE REPAIR: (Account No.
O1-232-6340-FRMNT) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-689 for adoption
awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of
the City Engineer in his memorandum dated October 17, 1978. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-689: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD FLOOD DAMAGE REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-FRMNT. (Mac-Well Company, $15,805)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-689 duly passed and adopted.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ORANGE~OOD AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS~ NINTH STREET
TO EUCLID STREET: (Account Nos. 13-792-6325-2120 and 01-792-6325-2120) Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-690 for adoption awarding a contract to the
]ow bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated October 17, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-690: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE 'FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, NINTH TO EUCLID, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-2120, A.H.F.P. NO. 859 & 913.
(Sully-Miller Contracting Company, $724,787.60)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-690 duly passed and adopted.
78-1426
~ity Hal~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 12-INCH DUCTILE IRON PIPE - BID NO. 3469: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of Pacific
States Cast Iron Pipe Company was accepted and purchase authorized in an amount
not to exceed $8,841.25, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated October 18, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 60,000 FEET OF #2 URD PRIMARY CABLE - BID NO. 3467:
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of
G. E. Supply Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $45,474,
including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated
October 17, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
174: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FIFTH YEAR PROGRAM - PUBLIC HEARINGS:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Clerk
was directed to set public hearings for the Community Development Block Grant
Fifth Year Program for Tuesday, November 21, 1978, at 7:00 p.m., and Tuesday,
December 19, 1978, at 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
131: REPAIR OF STATE ROUTE 72 (ANAHEIM BOULEVARD): On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, $380,000 was appropriated from Caltrans
District Agreement 3432 for the repair of State Route 72 (Anaheim Boulevard) from
the Route 91 Freeway to Cerritos Avenue, as recommended in memorandum dated October 12,
1978 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
164: STORM DRAIN PRIORITIES - PLANNING PERIOD 1978-1983: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, storm drain priorities for the planning
period 1978-1983 were established as outlined in memorandum dated October 16, 1978,
from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
131: ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -
CITY OF ANAHEIM PROJECTS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-691
for adoption giving support to the projects requested to be included in the Orange
County Transportation Commission Transportation Improvement Program as recommended
in memorandum dated October 18, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-691: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATING CERTAIN PROJECTS FOR INCLUSION IN ~HE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION'S TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-691 duly passed and adopted.
174: REVISED FEDERAL-AID PROJECT AGREEMENT: (Revised agreement with the State
of California Department of Transportation, Supplement No. 3 (revised) to Master
Agreement No. 07-5055, Project No. PMS-000S (427).
78-1427
~ity. Ha.il, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-692 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated October 13, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-692: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 3 (REVISED) TO LOCAL AGENCY-
STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RELATING TO FEDERAL AID PROJECTS, 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:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-692 duly passed and adopted.
180: CITY'S SELF-INSURED GENERAL LIABILITY LOSS FUND: Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager,
stated that wherever Admiral/First State appeared in the resolution, that S & H
Insurance should be substituted in its place. The resolution was developed by
the City Attorney's Office at the outset of a submission of the quotation to the
City and prior to the time that it was necessary for H & W Insurance Services to
replace the Admiral/First State with a fronting company which was S & H Insurance.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-693 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated October 17, 1978, from the Risk Manager, with the substitution
of S & H Insurance in place of Admiral/First State. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-693: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING A SELF-INSURED GENERAL LIABILITY LOSS FUND SO LONG AS THE CITY'S
GENERAL LIABILITY EXPOSURE IS INSURED BY S & H INSURANCE COMPANY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-693 duly passed and adopted.
i56: POLICE COMPLAINT FORM PROCEDURE: Councilman Kott stated that at.last
Tuesday night's meeting (see minutes of October 10, 1978), the Council listened
to a number of complaints by citizens for approximately 3 hours. One complaint
focused upon the activity at the Police Station desk and what occurred when people
walked in and asked for a complaint form. The Council was told that evening that
the procedure had been simplified 4 weeks prior and that no present problems existed
which, after investigation, was found not to be true. It seemed unusual to him
that both the City Manager and the Acting Police Chief were not aware of what was ~
going on in their departments.
78-1428
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott continued that he had always been an opponent of the use of cadets
in the Police Department especially since the department was constantly concerned
relative to their image. To be confronted by cadets when first entering the Police
Station was, thus, an initial detriment to the image they wanted to project. The
City Manager and the Acting Police Chief had a responsibility to the public, as well
as to the Council, and the false information they gave at the meeting when confronted
with the complaints did not make the Council credible in the eyes of the public.
In view of the foregoing situation and subsequent revelation that the new procedure
as explained was not in effect, Councilman Kott offered a resolution for adoption
that the City Manager and Acting Police Chief be censured with the forfeiture of
one-third of their previous months' salary for relaying false information to the
Council and the people.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to vote
against the resolution since he believed the City Manager and Acting Police Chief
were as embarrased as the Council to find out that the new procedure outlined was
not in effect. He commended Councilman Kott for personally investigating the matter,
but his proposal of censure was rather harsh under the circumstances.
Councilman Roth recounted that at a management seminar the previous year, he expressed
his concern over the fact that when people entered the Police Station they were
ususally in an emotional state and the first person with whom they came in contact
was a cadet. He felt a sworn officer should be present to meet the public and
monitor the situation, rather than having to be called from the back room. He had
been concerned for over a year regarding the matter and had received complaints
relative to cadets handling the public at the front desk.
Councilman Roth continued that last Tuesday night he observed the City Manager
turning to ask the Acting Police Chief whether or not the new system recommended
by Chief Bastrup had been implemented relative to complaints and he was told yes.
Thus, the City Manager was in the same category as the Council in accepting the
word of department heads that something had been done.
Mayor Seymour stated that he saw the problem relative to cadets basically as one
of training. Young people, if properly schooled and trained, could deal success-
fully with the public as evidenced by those working in private enterprise such as
at Disneyland. Regarding last Tuesday night, he also commended Councilman Kott for
pursuing the matter and although he was dissatisfied with the situation, he would
not support the resolution. He was embarassed because of the way the people were
treated at the hearing wherein they stated that the complaint form process was
improper and they were told by the City Manager and Acting Police Chief that the
procedure had been corrected. He was sorry that had occurred~ but agreed with
Councilman Overholt that the proposed resolution of censure and deducting of pay
was not an appropriate response to the situation.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution and failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
78-1429
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley acknowleged and confirmed the incident that occurred at the
last Tuesday night Council meeting. If he had been advised of the matter that
night, he would have seen to it that the procedure would have been as described
at the meeting. It was however instituted the next morning. The Acting Chief
called each of the persons who had attended the Council meeting and informed
them of the unfortunate event that had occurred and apologized for it.
For clarification purposes, Mr. Talley stated that Council was advised that the
complaint procedure would not be changed until the Chief returned. He had re-
turned yesterday and reviewed the procedure with the Anaheim Police Association
so as to prevent another problem. That meeting took place today, and he was advised
by the Chief just before the Council meeting that he was proceeding with redesign
of the complaint form and subsequently would be issuing an order. He reiterated
that as of last Wednesday morning, the new procedure was in effect.
129: FIREWORKS PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Roth, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted by Disneyland
to discharge fireworks on November 18 and 19, 1978, between 2:15 and 2:30 p.m.
each day was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
129: FIREWORKS PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted by Disney-
land on behalf of the Anaheim Halloween Committee, to discharge fireworks on
October 28, 1978 at 7:00 p.m., was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
]. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by James L. Norgard for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about September 2, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Bonnie Thomas for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a fall on the sidewalk directly in front of the Carousel Motel,
1530 South Harbor Boulevard on or about August 12, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Ronald R., Don R. and Mercia D. Clontz for personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about July 15,
1978.
d. Claim submitted by David Bryan Barry for personal damages purportedly sustained
as a result of action by Anaheim Police Officers on or about July 1, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Thomas Parks for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about August 14,
1978.
78-1430
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The following claims were recommended for approval:
f. Claim submitted by Francis Locken for property damages purportedly sustained
as the result of actions by the Anaheim tree trimming crew on or about August 13,
1978.
g. Claim submitted by Fred Harders for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of his car being rear-ended by a city-owned vehicle on or about
September 6, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 114: City of Rialto Ordinance No. 751 establishing a Mobile Home Rent Review
Commission.
b. 114: City of Westminster Resolution No. 1960 opposing State of California's
lack of concern for the impact of State mandated costs.
c. 140: Monthly report for August and September 1978 - Library.
d. 105: Library Board - Minutes of August 21 and September 18, 1978.
e. 175: Monthly report for September 1978 - Utilities Department, Utilities
Field Division and Customer Service Division.
f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of October 11, 1978.
g. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of October 11, 1978.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit for the Sociedad Progresista Lodge No. 14 to hold a dance
in Carpenters' Hall, 608 West Vermont Street, on November 4, 1978, from 8:00 p.m.
to 12:00 a.m. (Alice C. Salcido, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-694
through 78R-696, 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-694: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (David Navarro,
et ux.; Dunn Properties Corporation; Lawrence J. Martin, et ux.; W.R. Grace
Properties, Inc.; World Travel Bureau of Anaheim, Inc.; Robert Crane, Trustee;
Jesse Arriola, et ux.; Vincent Paul Piertrok, et ux.; The Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company)
78-1431
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-695: 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: APPLICATION
OF TRAFFIC STRIPE PAINT, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND DEVICES ON VARIOUS STREETS, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 12-796-6325-6010, 01-238-6340-00001,
01-238-6340-00002, and 01-238-6340-00005; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CON-
STRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS,
ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened November 16,
1978, 2:00 P.M.)
103: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-696: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 27 ANNEXATION. (46.258 acres northeast of
Canyon Rim Road and west of Serrano Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-694 through 78R-696, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
123/163: PLACENTIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - PERMITTING OF BAND PRACTICE IN
CITY STREET: In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Seymour stated he assumed
that the problem with the neighbor relative to band practice had not been re-
solved.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-697 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-697: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE PLACENTIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (permitting band practice in City street
located at Cresthill Drive between Kellogg Drive and Sundown Lane)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-697 duly passed and adopted.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3932: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3932 for
first reading.
78-1432
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3932: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI%Y OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 7,
CHAPTER 7.28 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTIONS 7.28.030
AND 7.28.040 RELATING TO HOTEL LOITERING.
156: USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT ABOVE SPEED LAWS BY OFF-DUTY POLICEMEN: Councilman
Overholt asked if anyone could enlighten him relative to the article in Action-
line referring to officers who were observed traveling on the freeway returning
from the Lyman Bostock funeral. He wanted to know when off-duty Policemen
participated in an event if they use City equipment and if so, under what
authority. It was of great concern to him to have City employees, even off-duty,
operating City equipment above speed laws.
City Manager agreed with Councilman Overholt and stated that he would provide a
report to the Council on the matter.
109: MEETING WITH SENATOR CARPENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that in a
meeting with Senator Carpenter on October 23, 1978, they discussed some of the
unknowns relative to the future implications of Proposition 13. Senator Carpenter
stated that there was no way of knowing what was going to happen the next year or
the following year.
PUBLIC HEARING ON RAMS CONTRACT: Councilman Roth stated that he would be out of
the state on November 7, 1978, the date set for public hearing on the Rams contract.
He was concerned over what effect his absence might have, if any, should the hearing
take place.
Mayor Seymour stated that the public hearing was tentatively scheduled on the
contingency that Mr. Rosenbloom had signed appurtenent documents by that time.
If not, the meeting would be continued.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he did not see any problem with Councilman
Roth's absence that date unless others on the Council would be absent at the
same time.
148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE: Councilman Kott referred
to a letter received from the Mayor's wife of San Dimas complaining about the
League of California Cities Annual Conference held in Anaheim which was contrary
to the report made by Councilwoman Kaywood.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated some of the comments made by attendees at the
conference whereby they felt it was the best conducted conference offering the
best facilities and the best personnel anywhere. They were very pleased with
Anaheim and were anxious to return.
105: LIAISON WITH LIBRARY BOARD: Mayor Seymour reported that as the result of
a Council meeting with the Library Board, the Board indicated the need to have
a more direct line of communication with the City Council than offered by the
Council Liaison Committee concept. They wanted someone at every Library Board
meeting, rather than one or two Council persons to meet with them periodically.
The Council had expressed the feeling that they would be of a mind to provide
such continuing representation. He thereupon moved that Councilman Overholt be
appointed as the Council member to serve as liaison with the Library Board at
each of their meetings. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1433
~ity Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour nominated Councilman Kott as an alternate to serve
as liaison to the Library Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Councilman Kott declined the nomination.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that Councilman Roth be appointed as alternate
to serve as liaison to the Library Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
148: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL CONGRESS: The Mayor referred to a memorandum
from the City Clerk relative to the National League of Cities Annual Congresss to be
held November 25 through 29, 1978 in St. Louis, Missouri. He stated that, in his
opinion, the National League, of which Anaheim was a member, was an effective
organization within which positive things could be accomplished. Thus he believed
it would be appropriate for him to attend the Annual Congress.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the Mayor attend the National League of
Cities Annual Congress from November 25 through 29, 1978 in St. Louis as the
voting delegate. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission, Community Redevelopment Commissio~ and the Housing Commission
was scheduled for November 28, 1978; the Mayor stated he would check the agenda for
the Congress, and if at all possible return in time to attend the joint meeting.
Councilman Kott stated that in the spirit of Proposition 13, he would not support
the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed to public hearing time.
(2:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-46~ VARIANCE NO. 2994 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 10254 (REVISION NO. 2): Application by Carl L. and Mildred E. Rau,
Classic Development Corporation, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 (SC) and
County A1 to RS-7200(SC), to establish a 16-lot subdivision on property located
on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler Drive, to-
gether with a request for waiver of Council Policy No. 538 relating to'Lot Nos.
1 through 5, with a request for waiver of:
a) minimum lot width and frontage
b) requirement that single-family structures rear on arterial highways
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-209 declared the
subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and further granted
Reclassification No. 77-78-46, subject to the following conditions:
78-1434
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
1. 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.
2. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
3. 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.
4. That 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.
5. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to completion
of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
6. That all structures constructed on subject property shall comply with require-
ments of the City of Anaheim Fire Zone No. 4, as approved by the Fire Department.
7. That the developer(s) remove the two illegal tract signs located on the block
wall (facing North) on the south side of the Riverside Freeway in Tract Nos. 7730
and 7736.
8. That the vehicular access rights, except at approved access points, to Santa
Aha Canyon Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
9. That the developers of subject property shall provide an adequate on-site
vehicular turn-around area for Lot Nos. 12 through 15, as approved by the City
Traffic Engineer.
10. That the developers of subject property shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee (Council Policy No. 214) amounting to $36.00 per each new
dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights
granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning
Commission 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. 2, 6 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-210 granted
Variance No. 2994 subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 77-78-46, now pending.
78-1435
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
3, Exhibit No. 1.
3. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from
date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
4. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10254 (Revision
No. 3) for 15 lots.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Kott
at the October 3, 1978 meeting, 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 asked if anything had been done relative to the concern expressed
at the previous hearing regarding the view coming up from the tract toward Santa
Ana Canyon Road.
Miss Santalahti stated that staff or the developer determined that no modification
was necessary. The concerns were in connection with grading for the tract and
when completed the visibility would be provided.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Ron Noyes, representing Classic Development, stated that they concurred with
the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He then elaborated upon tbe
vision problems about which the residents spoke. They were required to provide
300 feet of visibility which did not presently exist because of the weed growth
and natural obstructions which would be removed. A left-turn pocket would also
be constructed to provide access into the project from Santa Ana Canyon Road and
if the Traffic Engineer deemed it necessary, a right-turn pocket would also be
provided southbound onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. He also explained that the reason
for the third revision in the tract map was due to a reduction from 16 to 15 houses
providing one less driveway on the street.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Ferdie Franklin, 1439 East Chapman, stated that he was present on behalf of
some of the residents in the area to express their concerns regarding the develop-
ment. He focused on one major area of concern, that being the four additional
driveways, reduced from 5, to be added to Via Copala. The request for a variance
involved the front lot width for two of the houses on Via Copala which would have
78-1436
~it.y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the effect of allowing 3 houses on one side of the street where, without a
variance, it would be limited to two. While the variance was minor, only two
feet per lot, it was material to the proposal. There was a valid concern about
the number of driveways coming into Via Copala given its very steep nature. It
was a very hazardous area considering the high speed of travel on Santa Ana
Canyon Road when approaching Via Copala. Therefore, if one house was deleted
from the side of the street where three were now indicated, such action would
not only eliminate the variance, but also enable the developer to locate the
first driveway closest to Santa Ana Canyon Road farther away to give traffic
coming off or onto that road a better view in observing cars ingressing or
egressing from driveways on Via Copala. It was a safety factor which would
be considered, and he suggested that the variance relating to minimum lot width
and frontage on Via Copala not be granted.
Mr. Franklin continued that the developer indicated there was a hardship shown
with regard to the property. He suggested that no hardship had been shown. The
law and language of the Municipal Code spoke in terms of a property owner being
deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same area because of
special circumstances. He suggested there were no special circumstances with
regard to the subject portion of the subdivision, but simply the fact that the
developer wanted to add one more house to an area where there was only room for
two houses.
Karen Schonherz, 157 North Mohler Drive, stated she was not representing the
tract, but was present to connnent on what Mr. and Mrs. Craig Miller had suggested.
She was also a member of HACMAC and was speaking in their behalf. She asked that
since such a steep grade was involved if it would be possible to make a larger
swing on the curve off Via Copala. It would mean taking some of the frontage
away from the two lots or three on the east side of the street thereby making a
larger swing resulting in a more gradual drop instead of a steep drop as now
existed. As the attorney explained, there was no visibility to the bottom of
the street when a vehicle was at the top crest of Via Copala, but if widened
with a larger curve, it would be less of a steep drop enabling a driver to see
to the bottom. The visibility problem had nothing to do with weeds or a wall.
Mrs. Eve Miller, 7688 Calle Durango, stated that they were back to the Council
because apparently the Planning Commission could not propose anything more than
deleting one home and the problem of the street had never really been discussed.
The Traffic Department only had record of one accident at Via Copala, but there
were four others, two of which she had seen herself caused by vehicles losing
control and possibly not being able to see on the corner. In both instances,
the cars she observed fell into the property where the proposed houses were
going to be located. Another problem was the street itself which should at
least be straightened out so that the people who were going tO purchase a home
could feel safe living in them. In concluding, Mrs. Miller stated that she had
16 different responses from homeowners in the area as to exactly what was trying
to be done on the street which she submitted to the Council.
Mr. Noyes stated it was not the first time that concerns and questions were raised
relative to the street. The same questions had been asked before the Planning
Commission and City Council previously and the last time the project was before
78-1437
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
the Council it was referred back to the Commission to answer those very questions--
namely the safety of the street, number of lots and the variances requested. The
Planning Commission recommended that a lot be removed which they had done. The
Commission also reinforced their original opinion that a hardship did exist and
recommended that the waivers and variances be granted. It was not reasonable
to state that the problem had not been considered and explored. The Traffic
Engineer had also made an extensive survey of the traffic on the street and found
the traffic count to be very low, 700 cars a day, and was unable to find any addi-
tional hazards associated with the design. Classic had taken every step possible
to resolve the problems and to answer the questions. There did not appear to be
any way of realigning the street since it was feasible from a traffic standpoint.
Having a temporary facility there at present with a grade differential was not as
safe as having a fully improved street which they proposed to build at that loca-
tion. The waivers and variances were also consistent with those granted in the
adjacent tracts to Classic. His position was that the questions had been adequately
explored and the answers presented were also adequate. Therefore, he asked for
approval of the project.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Noyes if the suggestion that the street and curves
be widened to make it less of a drop was valid.
Mr. Noyes answered that the suggestion was considered and apparently it was not
a valid solution inasmuch as the centerline of Via Copala was in alignment with
the central line of Eucalyptus Drive on the other side of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Thus to move it would cause an offset of that central line. He explained further
for Councilwoman Kaywood that the useful width of the street was reduced at this
time because of the weed growth, but it would be widened from its present condi-
tion, and as well, the parkway areas behind the curb would provide a wider path of
visibility.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained that the street was not much wider
than 24 feet at present, and it was going to be widened to 40 feet from curb to
curb, plus a sidewalk.
The Mayor asked Mr. Singer to speak to the concern expressed by the residents
regarding visibility and the grade of the street and its effect on safety, as
well as to the creation of additional driveways on Via Copala, and if there was
anything further that could be done to mitigate the situation if an unsafe condi-
tion existed.
Mr. Singer stated that since the location was in the hill and canyon area, they
were faced with unusual grades as opposed to the flat land. Thus, one could not
expect the same type of visibility or maneuverability. The location of the street
was captive because both ends of the street were fixed. The gentlest grade between
the two had been established and at one point there was approximately 13 percent.
It flattened out as it approached Santa Ana Canyon Road providing good visibility
at the intersection. In fact, the visibility was good at both intersections, at
Calle Durango and at Santa Ana Canyon Road and after improvement of the street, it
78-1438
City. Hail~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
would be even better. Relative to the driveways, he hoped that the driveway on
the west side, being the most critical because it was on the inside of the curve
radius where visibility was reduced, would be located as far away from Santa
Ana Canyon Road as possible. The Planning Commission recommendation was that
visibility of 300 feet be maintained from this driveway in either direction.
The driveways on the east side of the curve had far greater visibility and
therefore would not be seriously impacting traffic. The Planning Commission
also recommended that space be provided on each of the lots so that vehicles
would not have to back out onto Via Copala, but be able to drive in and have
the ability to turn around so that they could head back out rather than back
out onto Via Copala. Those provisions, if adhered to, could mitigate some of the
problems experienced in all hill areas. If the property was constructed accord-
ing to the Planning Commission recommendations, it was his opinion that the
street could be as safe as any other street in the City. However, that should
not be misconstrued to mean that there would never be any accidents. Safety was
still up to the individual using the street or the driveway. Mr. Singer also
pointed out that the only reported accident on record since the opening of Via
Copala was in the vicinity of the street, but Via Copala itself was not involved.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Maury Nickel of Classic Development explained
that the subject property was acquired by a grant deed at the request of the
City and the original map did not cover the property. Their intention was to
ultimately install a cul-de-sac in the location and thus it was not improved
with the rest of the property. Pressure was applied from a homeowner group to
the City indicating they wanted a second access at that point, and the City
Engineer subsequently approached him asking if he would give the City an easement
and access to Santa Aha Canyon Road. It was a request he felt he could not refuse;
thus he granted the property to the City.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
on the environment since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for low density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initial
study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact~ and i~, th~re£ore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour stated that Councilman Roth was correct to a degree that'the City
in trying to respond to a concern expressed by the citizens for access to Santa
Ama Canyon Road perhaps contributed to the grade problem of Via Copala. On the
other hand, the Traffic Engineer was correct in pointing out that people living
in the hill and canyon area could not expect flat land conditions. He was also
satisfied that the Planning Commission and staff had worked with the developer
to the greatest extent possible to mitigate the conditions relative to the con-
cerns expressed by the homeowners in the area. The requirement imposed upon the
78-1439
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
developer to provide 300 feet of visibility in either direction would be a key
fsctor in mitigating those concerns. He believed the problem lay in the fact
that the neighbors did not want houses to be built at all, and he empathized with
their point of view. It was clear to him however that the proposed homes offered
much less density than the homes in which people were already residing in that
neighborhood. The property owner had a right to develop his property as long as
he did so while being sensitive to his neighbors in meeting the requirements set
forth in the ordinances.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-698 for adoption authorizing
the preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested and
Resolution No. 78R-699 for adoption granting Variance No. 2994, as recommended by
the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-698: 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. (77-78-46, RS-7200)
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-699: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2994.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-698 and 78R-699 duly passed and adopted.
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 10254 (REVISION NO. 3): On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed subdivision, Tentative Map Tract No.
10254 (Revision No. 3), containing 15 proposed zoned lots, together with its design
and improvement were found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the
City Council approved said tentative map, subject to the following conditions
recommended by the City Planning Commission:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 10254 (Revision No. 3) is
granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 77-78-46 and Variance
No. 2994.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
constructed on the southeast property line separating Lot Nos. 6 through 8 and
14 through 16 and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Reasonable landscaping, including
irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the
arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said land-
scaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent
of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of
Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
78-1440
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That 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.
6. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final
tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions
shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. Said covenants, condi-
tions, and restrictions shall include provisions for the satisfactory permanent
maintenance of all slope areas located northerly of the block wall separating the
tract from the Riverside Freeway.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
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 drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is
required 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
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the
City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary
right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or
the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs
of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading
operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient
to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property
to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate
point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy
permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the
developers of said property upon their request.
10. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be con-
ducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from
this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from
or flowing through this project.
11. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be
installed in the median of Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way in accordance
with the requirements of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following
installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility
for maintenance of said landscaping.
12. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, acceptable
to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control District.
78-1441
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October .24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
13. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
14. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage assess-
ment fees to the City of Anaheim, as determined by the City Engineer, prior to
approval of a final tract map.
15. That final specific plot, floor and elevation plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council for review and approval prior to issuance
of building permits.
16. A left-hand turn pocket on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Copala shall be
constructed by the developer for east-bound traffic and shall be approved by the
City Engineer.
17. 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.
18. That the developer shall provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting
Via Copala onto Santa Ana Canyon Road for a minimum distance of 300 feet of the
approach permit.
19. That sound-attenuation measures adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road and the
Riverside Freeway shall be provided in accordance with Council Policy No. 542.
20. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the regulations pertaining
to tree preservation in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
21. 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.
Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, waiver
of Council Policy No. 538 relating to Lot Nos. 1 through 5 of Tentative Tract No.
10254, was approved. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
155/175: PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOT NO. 221: City of Anaheim
to consider the construction of an electric utility substation on the east side
of Fairmont Boulevard approximately 550 feet south of Santa Aha Canyon Road.
Mr. Bob Kelly, Assistant Planner, explained that the site for the proposed sub-
station was selected by a committee consisting of members of the Planning Commis-
sion, a consultant from the Electrical Division and members of HACMAC. The EIR
was reviewed by HACMAC, and they noted a concern with the proposed transmission
line on Fairmont Boulevard. They recommended that the City Council consider the
cost versus the benefits of the appearance of the transmission line along Fairmont
with the possibility of undergrounding and as another alternative the possibility
78-1442
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
of locating the transmission line along the side of Fairmont instead of in the
median strip. The EIR Review Committee recommended that the EIR be certified
as being complete and adequate.
On questioning by the Council, Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent,
relayed the following: the cost to run the lines along the side of Fairmont
instead of the median would be approximately the same; the standard construction
for transmission lines in the area was presently overhead because of the cost.
They were proposing to exit the substation with underground circuits in order
to maintain the aesthetics of the station, but otherwise the lines would be
overhead; Anaheim Hills, Inc. had installed about 7 miles of underground lines
on Serrano and Canyon Rim Road, but mostly all others were overhead; the sub-
division facilities would be underground, but the lines along the main arterials
and streets would be overhead. The high voltage circuits were much more expensive
to put underground, thus lines generally above 50,000 volts were overhead.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated that there was no doubt that the site was a proper one for
the substation because there had been a great deal of input from HACMAC, the
Planning Commission and the Public Utilities Board. They had done a fine job
in research and location. His primary concern was relative to the lines, whether
they should be overhead or underground. He preferred to see them go underground,
but a sizeable expense was involved of some $500,000. He therefore wanted to have
a questionnaire developed and inserted in the Utility bills of the people living
in the hill and canyon area asking their opinion as to whether or not they wanted
to have the lines underground for aesthetic purposes and further whether or not
they would be willing to pay for the undergrounding. The response from the
questionnaire would thus provide guidance in making a decision. The format of the
questionnaire sho~ld first be submitted to the Council for approval before mailing
to assure the questions being asked would solicit responses on which a decision
could be made.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed for Councilman Roth that relative to forming an
assessment district, it would be a matter of electrical equipment being installed
on a street light basis and thus could fall under an assessment district concept.
Councilman Roth stated that the questionnaire should give an estimate of costs per
household. Mayor Seymour stated that the questionnaire should speak not only to
today's population, but also tomorrow's population as well, since the cost when
split among future residents would be much less significant.
Councilman Seymour moved to direct staff to prepare a questionnaire for residents
of the hill and canyon area relative to their preference of underground or over-
head lines and if they would be willing to help pay costs, with the questionnaire
first to be submitted to the Council for approval prior to mailing. Councilman
Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, a brief discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood
posed several questions to Mr. Edwards. She was concerned that the people in the
area might be misled if it was not clear that only the new lines would be underground
78-1443
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES~- October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
where they might be expecting the elimination of all poles in the canyon area.
She also understood the cost difference in new construction between overhead
and underground was 10 to 15 times more, but when talking about conversion
from overhead to underground the cost was much greater.
Mr. Edwards confirmed that the cost would be greater, but he did not know how
much. He also confirmed that the location of the transmission line in the center
or the side of Fairmont was immaterial to them, but it would be discussed with
HACMAC.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 221 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact
Report No. 221 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the
City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines
and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting
upon such information and belief does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that EIR No. 221 is in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines.
MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the substation
site was approved and the Real Property Division authorized to have the property
appraised and to negotiate for the purchase thereof. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Kott moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. in the Anaheim Room of
the Anaheim Convention Center, 800 West Katella Avenue. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:55 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
CITY COUNCIL: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
CITY COUNCIL: None
PLANNING COMMISSION: Johnson, Tolar, Herbst, Barnes, David,
King and Bushore
PLANNING COMMISSION: None
GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Endicott, Lewis, Martin, Messe,
Herling, Klein, Sweet and Bartholomew
GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Patterson
HILL & CANYON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
HILL & CANYON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: John Anderson
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & AUDIT MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
Rau, Sisson, Schonhertz,
Gunter, Allen, Dyas~ Gowa,
Hall, Pinson, Rivera and
Burlington
None
78-1444
City Hall..~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the joint meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.,
for the purpose of conducting a public meeting to consider the Anaheim Hills
Golf Course operation/alternatives. He briefly introduced the various commis-
sions, Council Members and staff present and then turned the meeting over to
Mr. Talley for the staff presentation.
135: PUBLIC HEARING - ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Mr.
Talley reviewed the objectives for the evening's meeting and advised that one of
the directions given by the City Council to staff following the adoption of Propo-
sition 13 was to review every operation in the Citv and report back on recommended
increases or decreases in pro,rams. One of the reasons for the concentration on
the Anaheim Hills Golf Course is that it is an enterprise operation and when first
conceived was to have achieved a break-even position by now. One of the recommenda-
tions was that consideration be given to ceasing the golf course operation and
utilizing that property as a low-maintenance greenbelt area to reduce the City's
liability. Part of Council discussion directed staff to review alternatives for
the Anaheim Hills Golf Course and in addition some interest was received from the
private sector regarding management of the course and use of available land. For
these reasons, the evening's presentation and discussion will include the physical
parameters, legal and physical limitations on the land and alternatives available
to the City.
Mr. William T. Hopkins presented a short summary of the historical highlights in
development of that property as a golf course beginning in 1965 when the land was
designated as open space in the Hill and Canyon General Plan; later recommended
that a championship golf course be built; in 1970 the land was transferred from
the responsibility of Public Works to the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department
and agreements executed with the Robert H. Grant Company for purchase of the property
to develop the golf course facility and clubhouse; this agreement called for a special
fund as a lien against the property and the General Fund is not liable for payment.
The course was constructed in 1971-72 at a cost of $1,374,000; in 1975, the respon-
sibility for management of the course was shifted from Parks, Recreation and the
Arts to the Stadium and Convention Center management; in 1976 an equestrian center
lease was executed between the City and Texaco-Anaheim Hills for use of some of the
excess portion of property.
Mr. Tom Liegler summarized the current operation of the courses which came under
his leadership as the result of the Arthur Young & Company recommendation following
a complete City-wide management audit. He advised that at that time the City Council
and Golf Course Advisory Commission unanimously passed and executed the following
present objectives for operation of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course: to provide a
golfing activity by attempting to assure that any operational debt service, interest,
amortization, and all other costs of the combined activities be met by revenues from
fees, food and beverage income, professional services and all other possible sources
of golf course related income; and further, to provide an attractive and accessible
facility for golfers and others at reasonable costs for the enjoyment of the general
public. The agreed upon scope of work was, in other words, to try to make the
courses pay for themselves; try to keep the golfers happy and try to upgrade both
of the courses.
78-1445
~ity Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Liegler advised that the end results of six years of golf course operations
are a total of three years of improvements completed, but in his staff's opinion,
the course is yet to be completed. Before the City can expect a net profit, con-
siderable front expenditures must be made. He stressed that whoever operates the
course, it must be recognized that there are substantial non-operating costs to be
taken into consideration before profits--these relate to payments on the land;
completion of the course; repair of severe erosion damage. He explained that if
the destruction from the rain last spring is not repaired soon, it will become a
major cost.
Mr. Liegler concluded that his department and staff are prepared to uphold what-
ever policy and course of action the City Council decides upon. He announced
that in the next fiscal year the financial report on the enterprise accounts,
including Anaheim Hills Public Golf Course, should reflect a bottomline net of
well over $3.5 million to be deposited back into the General Fund and this he
feels is a valid reason for the City to remain in the enterprise business.
Mr. Ron Rothschild, Program Development & Audit Manager, reviewed the fiscal
history of the last six years of operation at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course,
noting that revenue growth went from $280,000 to $588,000 per year in this
period of time, for a 110 percent increase; conversely however, expenditures
rose from $504,000 to $934,000 per year for an operating loss ranging from
$244,000 to $346,000 last year, or a 55 percent increase in operating losses.
He summarized some of the reasons the Anaheim Hills Golf Course operates in a
deficit position: (1) the land payment of $141,000 per year; (2) the $210,000
payment for the remainder of the land purchased and designated for park purposes
which amount will be retired in 12 more years; (3) the fact that for most efficient
maintenance, golf fairways should not be graded at more than 10 percent grade and
at Anaheim Hills there are some fairways in excess of 25 percent grade; (4) the
maintenance facility is somewhat removed from the main portion of the course;
(5) while the course is designed to be challenging, it is not adaptable for fast
and easy play which restricts the numbers of rounds played; (6) the terrain of
the course demands the use of golf carts and this limits the size of the recrea-
tional public using the course; (7) the drainage culvert running through the
middle of the course requires continual maintenance. (More detailed information
including balance sheets, profit and loss statements, was offered to both Council
Members and public if they so desired.)
Mr. Rothschild briefed the assembly on the legal constraints placed on the course,
i.e., if it is not kept by the City it must be retained as an 18-hole golf course
unless the existing indebtedness is paid off in full, or a change in use is approved
under the existing agreements; if the course is sold or leased, the proceeds from
same must be used to retire the existing indebtedness; if the'City elects to offer
the property for sale, other public agencies must have the first right of refusal
in accordance with State law.
Mr. John Anderson, Associate Planner for the City of Anaheim Planning Department,
using a series of slide transparencies, addressed the subject of the physical aspect
of the golf course and exploration of some options available to the City from a la~
use planning point of view as follows:
78-1446
City Hall, ~nah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Anaheim Hills Golf Course is shown on the City's adopted General Plan as an
open space, multi-use area. A portion of it is the Southern California Edison
easement, forming a link to other open space features such as Oak Canyon Park;
it serves for flood control and recreation purposes. Insofar as it is located
downstream from the Walnut Canyon Reservoir, it acts as a public safety feature.
The layout of the land is such that 200 of the 235 subject acres lie north of
Nohl Ranch Road and 35 acres lie to the south of it. The golf facility consists
of a clubhouse, maintenance building and 18 links, although there is a proposal
to increase these to a total of 27 golf links. The natural features include a
water course bisecting the property and running east and west. The area on the
perimeter of the course shows considerable slope features, some of these over
50 percent slope. There are numerous trees in stands or as individuals.
Based on the natural features and access situation, 111 of the 200 acres north
of Nohl Ranch Road and the entire 35-acre portion to the south were identified
as potential areas which are possibly available for more intensive development,
as these are not located in the Southern California Edison easement nor in the
flood path and are accessible. (Above areas identified as Parcels A through J
for purposes of this study and later consolidated into Parcels AB-I, C-i, H-i,
H-2, I-1 and J-1.)
Each of these parcels were then reviewed in terms of numbers of acres, costs to
access or improve prior to sale, and the net revenue ranges these parcels might
yield, assuming single- or multiple-family housing units were developed. The
net revenue yield ranged from a minus $100,000 to a $250,000 gain. The review
of the option areas gave staff an idea as to which of the parcels could be
developed more intensively without eliminating the 18-hole golf course.
A list of potential uses for the golf course was developed in which all possibil-
ities were included. It was pointed out that one of the concepts considered was
a passive recreation area on an unused portion of the course with more intense
development in the immediate environment of the clubhouse such as a racquetball
facility and spa; consolidation of some of the park and recreation features in
the area; removal of the fiscal responsibility for erosion control from the golf
course; course improvements to holes 12 and 13 to facilitate maintenance and
possibly increase revenues from more play.
The end result of this review was that a maximum of 67 acres were identified
which could conceivably be developed and which would bring to the City a range
o£ net revenue from $326,000 to $1,301,000. However, subtraction of the optimum
amount from the outstanding principal, still leaves the City in a deficit position
on the land amounting to approximately $431,308.
At the conclusion of the staff presentation, Mayor Seymour requested that the
Chairmen call their respective boards and commissions to order, and there being
a quorum present, the Planning Commission, Golf Course Advisory Commission and
Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Commission were all called to order at
8:30 p.m.
78-1447
~ity ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour opened the floor for discussion.
During the evening's dialogue the following persons spoke in favor of retaining
the Anaheim Hills Golf Course as an operating 18-hole golf facility: Jim
Christiansen, 2832 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, representing Robert P. Warmington
Company; Pam Berry, 6012 La Paz Circle; Ethel Gowa, 531Paseo de Luna; Pat Fadisch,
homeowner from Hunter's Point; Sue Cohn, resident of Anaheim Hills; Dan Salceda,
representing Anaheim Hills; Kenneth Hueler, 906 Pioneer Drive; Bob Ninburg, 6580
Paseo Caballo; Stewart Peeler, 7001 East Country Club Lane; Paul Sims, resident
of A~Laheim Hills; Ann Lockridge, Vice President of Anaheim Hills Women's Golf.
Club; Larry Snyder, 1923 Fruit Street, Santa Ana, representing the Anaheim Hills
Men's Golf Club; Richard James, 7015 Blackbird; George Hathaway, 1923 Rosewood
Avenue.
Basically, the reasons given in support of this position by the above-mentioned
people were: the golf course provides a visual amenity which is very ~mportant
to the people living around it; that when the developers and homeowners bought
the property surrounding the course, they were told the golf course would remain,
so that it is now a matter of credibility that the City retain the course; the
City is committed to those who bought homes because of the combination of mistakes
made in 1971 and 1972 when the City was duped into buying land and developing the
course for the benefit of private developers and secondly, that the design of
the course is not feasible and therefore does not attract the number of golfers
it should; that the City must first spend money in order to make money and that
by putting some front capital out for redesign of the golf course to make it
easier to play, the golf course would pay for itself; that the property was pur-
chased at a reasonable rate and is a good investment; that people surrounding
the course have paid money for view sites and were not informed there might be
problems with retaining the golf course; because area residents do play on the
golf course and like it; it provides an oasis in the middle of surrounding
development; the Anaheim Hills, Inc., has spent considerable time and energy in
developing a plan for the community which would provide the right balance of
recreational amenities, open space, commercial and residential uses and this
plan should be maintained; that the loan for the golf course property is at
very low interest and within a reasonable period of time will be paid off; that
golf courses have to be thought of in terms of 20- to 30-year investments and
that this one will pay for itself if the City hangs on to it; that the sale of
this course to a private entity would remove any future decision as to the use
of that land from the surrounding citizens; that the aesthetic value of the course
is reflected in the price of the homes and thus adds to the City's tax dollars;
that it is a recreational opportunity which does bring in some revenue, whereas
there are parks throughout the City which are maintained at taxpayer cost and
will never be self-supporting; that there is "penny-wise, pound-foolish" attitude
in the concern for immediate fiscal return on what is a long-term asset; that this
course is one of the few amenities provided the people in the hill and canyon area
who are far removed from the Stadium and Convention Center; that if the City could
afford to expand the Stadium in an effort to attract the Rams, they could also
afford to maintain the course; (To this last comment, Mayor Seymour noted that the
final decision has not yet been made on the Rams contract, and the City Council has
indicated they will not agree to bring the Rams into Anaheim if it will cost the
payers one cent.); that there have been tremendous improvements at the course since
78-1448
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
the operation was taken over by the Stadium-Convention Center Director and after
spending all of this time and money, the City should "hang in there" as the course
will shortly be profitable; that the area is continually developing and with more
and more people moving in, there will be more play and increased revenue; that the
losses discussed do not amount to that much when you consider that these amounts
are less than the costs of most of the homes surrounding the course.
Additionally, it was suggested during discussion that the Clubhouse restaurant be
revamped for entertaining and that the food offered be of a type that would attract
more patrons and that the prices for same be increased accordingly; that the course
be given a trial at management by a private corporation was also mentioned as well
as the employment of a professional golf course manager.
Questions raised during the discussion related to ownership of the 6 percent note;
with whom the agreement restricting use of the golf course was made; and from whom
the land was originally purchased (asked by Bruce Ickus, homeowner in the Woodcrest
Development).
Mr. Rothschild replied that the land was originally purchased from the Robert H.
Grant Corporation and the restriction on use of this land was incorporated into
the original purchase agreement with that firm. He added that the 6 percent note
is now held by Santa Anita Enterprises.
Mr. Hal Barstow, homeowner in Anaheim Hills, questioned whether the figure given
as a cost for the drainage canal on the golf course was an annual maintenance cost
or a capitalized cost to which Mr. Rothschild responded that the $100,000 figure
represents the minimum amount necessary for deferred maintenance on the channel
to repair the erosion damage caused last spring. The annual maintenance cost
would be a much smaller amount.
Speaking against the City's maintaining the property as a golf course was Mr.
Lou Dexter, 305 North Ranchito Street, who indicated that the course has been
losing money ever since its opening and is estimated will be in a deficit posi-
tion of $407,000 this year despite the excellent management job done by Tom
Liegler, and that the Council should consider the best decision for all of the
Anaheim taxpayers, not just those who live near the golf course. He noted that
the people on the west side of Anaheim have contributed many tax dollars towards
the golf course; that Federal Revenue Sharing Funds have been used on the course
and summarized that the taxpayers collectively have, over a period of time, in-
vested a huge sum of money which could have gone into some other priority. He
suggested setting up a special tax assessment district for the Anaheim Hills area
to retain the course.
Dr. George Kirkelie, representing the Anaheim Elks Lodge No. 1545, advised that
this Lodge must relocate from their present facility because of Redevelopment
Project Alpha and proposed that they would build a $450,000 to $500,000 structure,
at their expense, on the excess golf course property. This facility would be
available to the public for social functions, and the arrangement would allow
the golf course clubhouse food and beverage manager and the Elks Club management
to coordinate their needs. He stated that he believes the revenues realized by
the City from food and beverage, golf carts and green fees would be increased
78-1449
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
through this mutual venture. In addition, the structure would be such that it
would be an asset to the City and according to State law would revert to the
City after 50 years. He noted that this facility would provide a much needed
recreational center in the hill and canyon area. He concluded that the Anaheim
Elks Lodge endorses the recommendation issued by the Golf Course Advisory Commis-
sion Subcommittee regarding the rezoning and sale of certain portion of the golf
course and maintenance of the golf course property itself as an operating 18-hole
course.
Councilman Kott requested that those in the audience favoring the Elks Club
proposal stand to indicate their approval and a large portion of the audience
stood.
Mr. Gary Loughman, 6466 Via Corral, stated that he lives directly across from the
Anaheim Hills Golf Course. He advised that his problem relates to the noise that
he currently endures coming from the golf course clubhouse. When he heard that
the Elks were considering erecting a structure and moving to this location, he
did some further investigation at the 12 Elks clubs in Orange County and talked
with residents in the area surrounding these clubs. He contended that he learned
as a result of his efforts that the Elks have no control over the volume of music
played at their facilities nor of the duration of the parties. Furthermore he
understands that these facilities are booked for every weekend to the end of this
year. He inquired if the City Council is interested in the Elks Club proposal,
then what will they do about the noise problem.
Speaking in favor of the Elks proposal were Mr. Lou Dexter, 305 North Ranchito
Street, who felt it might alleviate the financial problem.
Mr. Richard James, 7015 Blackbird Lane, asked that the Council consider the issue
of sound and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood when they considered the
Elks proposal. He related that he too has experienced a great deal of noise from
the functions held at the Anaheim Hills Clubhouse.
Judith Forbes of Country Hill Lane stated that she also recalled the event at the
clubhouse mentioned earlier, which was very noisy, but that she was certain the
Anaheim City Council would use the same kind of planning and foresight as their
predecessors did when they first created the golf course and the scenic corridor,
to deal with the noise problem at the proposed Elks Club building. She added
that there is no place currently in the Canyon for large groups of people to meet
or h01d a dance except the cafeteria at th~ high school: that the area really
needs a place to rent for social events such as the Elks Club would provide.
There being no further persons who wished to discuss the subject, Mayor Seymour
requested the report and recommendation from the Golf Course Advisory Commission.
Mr. Bob Messe advised that at Council's request, the Golf Course Subcommittee was
formed to advise the City Council on a specific program with time frames as to how
to bring the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to a totally break-even position without
selling the course itself to interested private parties. Prior to giving the recom~__~
mendation, Mr. Messe complimented the golf course management team on the vast im-
provements made in a few short years, without which the break-even plan they propos~
would not have been possible.
78-1450
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Messe also explained that they did not investigate the possibility of leasing
the golf course to a management company inasmuch as they felt the City management
team could institute cost reductions as well as any other outside firm and by
maintaining management of the course, the City continues to have full flexibility
in the future. In addition, proposals from outside management companies have not
looked to be financially favorable for the City.
Mr. Messe presented the recommendation of the Golf Course Advisory Commission
Subcommittee as follows: (1) that the Anaheim Hills Golf Course reduce operating
expenses by 25 percent immediately; (2) that the City sell 35-plus acres of land
following General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the property. Mr. Messe explained
that if this proposal were acceptable and fully operational by July 1, 1979, the
golf course would experience a loss of $30,000 in 1981 and would be at a break-even
position by 1982, depending upon the assumption that golf course revenue will con-
tinue to grow in 1979 and increase by 15 percent each year thereafter, which is
a somewhat more conservative figure than the budget for this fiscal year reflects.
The sale of the 35-plus acres it is assumed would bring $35,000 per acre or
$1,225,000. Any excess funds available after payment of the $1,165,600 principal
they would recommend be earmarked for a course improvement fund.
Mr. Messe advised that there is an alternative to this which they call Plan No. 2.
This plan includes the same recommendations and assumptions with a cutback of
expenses by 20 percent rather than 25 percent and allows a longer period for the
course to come to break-even (1983). He added that with the Dad Miller Course
maintaining profitability, the courses combined profit and loss statement will
show a profit in 1980 with either of these plans.
Additional possibilities for increasing revenues and decreasing expenses which
might be considered were discussed including the utilization of approximately
2.5 acres of land and the existing parking lot for the library branch in the
hills, which would save the grading expenses and proceeds from the sale of the
current 13-acre library site could accrue to the golf course improvement fund;
the Elks Club proposal which could increase revenues from additional golf cart
rentals and concessions at the clubhouse.
Mr. Messe concluded with the proviso that to implement the 25 percent reduction
as recommended will require a change in management philosophy and it will have
to be realized by all concerned that attention to all of the various details of
clubhouse, grounds, fairway, rough and cart maintenance will have to be curtailed.
He also noted that the problem of financing a redesign of portions of the course
still remains unaddressed, as well as the potential problem of funding erosion
damage repairs from past and future heavy rain storms.
Mr. Messe advised, at the conclusion of his presentation, that the above recommen-
dation and plan were accepted unanimously by the Golf Course Advisory Commission
~t a special meeting held October 12, 1978, for submission to the City Council.
Mayor Seymour turned the remainder of the meeting over to comments from the City
Council and/or boards and commissions.
78-1451
~ity Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth thanked the audience for their input and stated that he was
very happy with the Golf Course Advisory Commission Subcommittee report. As
a resident of the area, he wished to make clear, contrary to what people may have
read in the newspapers, he is not in favor of building 500 homes on the Anaheim
Hills Golf Course, nor is he in favor of low-cost housing for that property. He
explained that he has become, however, very concerned over the continuing losses
experienced at the course and therefore is interested in exploring the possibility
of free enterprise buying or leasing part of the property, perhaps using a deed
restriction to prohibit certain uses of the golf course property. In addition,
he felt the City should consider the Elks Club proposal and others such as a
lease of some property for an "Orange Hills" type of restaurant which might have
an effect on revenues and reduction of debt. He maintained that the City cannot
continue without doing something to reduce the losses experienced with this golf
course and he was of the opinion that some of the recommendations heard this
evening, particularly the Golf Course Advisory Commission Subcommittee plan, are
worthy of exploration and ones which he would support.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she felt the golf course was an amenity in the
canyon, but with the advent of Proposition 13 the City is faced with a ~arge
problem. She also related the difficulties of passing revenue bonds for needed
improvements. She concluded that she desires that the City retain the golf course
and is open to any suggestions that will assist the City in this objective. She
stressed that she has always been concerned with the appearance of the community
on a very long-range basis. She advised that she would also be willing to look
further into the Elks Club proposal when presented in more definitive form.
Councilman Overholt observed that he has heard tonight an expression of many
fears which he feels are unfounded since in the 6 months he has sat on the City
Council he has never heard any member propose that the Anaheim Hills Golf Course
be closed. He has observed however that both before and after Proposition 13
each of the Council Members has expressed concern over the increasing deficit
from operation of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course. He voiced the opinion that the
recommendation from the Golf Course Advisory Commission Subcommittee was well
thought out and gives the Council some real hope as to being able to reach a
break-even position. In addition, he indicated that he would endorse the type
of proposal suggested by the Elks Club representative and that he feels a combi-
nation of the proposals heard this evening will probably form the solution to
the problem.
Councilman Kott stated that he would not vote for sale or closure of the Anaheim
Hills Golf Course. He voiced the opinion that the Hills golf course is operation-
ally not actually losing money, but on paper it appears that it is, when you take
into consideration the original cost of the land and the City's revised accounting
system.
Councilman Kott read sections from the City Council minutes of June 15, 1971 which
he felt indicated that the original develope~ of Anaheim Hills, Mr. Grant, was
short by some $3 million in funds necessary to purchase the complete property then
known as the Nohl Ranch and a deal was made. He read further sections from the
minutes indicating that a speaker, Mr. Vind, has accurately predicted that there
would be a discrepancy in the amount of revenue estimated from the golf course and
that which is actually realized.
78-1452
~ity ~all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott further commented that he has never heard proposals for sale of
the Anaheim Stadium or Convention Center and the Stadium has lost money for years.
He felt Mr. Liegler's record of a 45 percent increase in revenues over the three-
year period, or 15 percent per year, is a good one. He noted that from what he
could learn from the minutes and history of the course, the architect chosen by
the then City Manager and City Council had never before built a golf course.
Councilman Kott concluded that his main thought on the situation is that the
City Council does have an obligation morally to those who bought homes surrounding
the golf course property, to retain the course.
A brief question and answer and comments period was held during which the subject
of exact location of the property under discussion for possible sale; whether or
not increase of green fees was considered; the fact that consideration of pro-
fessional management was not included in the report; the basis on which the figure
of $35,000 per acre was estimated as the value of the property; use of the parking
lot and property adjacent to the clubhouse for a library site.
Planning Commissioner Herbst stated that because of its location beneath the dam,
the golf course property would not be suitable for homes, it must be maintained
as open space. He felt the golf course property which is considered as part of
the City's total open space--park acreage required to be developed and maintained
by City policy, should be viewed in that light. He noted that if it were just
left as a park or open space there would be no income from it whatsoever, and the
City would still have to maintain it.
Planning Commissioner Johnson stated that looking at this as a business venture,
the City, when they bought the ground at $9,000 per acre, created a vast reserve
of assets. Even though the bookkeeping system currently used, which will not
allow the increased asset values to show and therefore the value reflected is
$1.6 million, in actual fact the property is worth $4 million to $5 million and
in his opinion that is not a bad business venture.
There were no further comments from boards and commissions.
Mayor Seymour summarized that his position is similar to others stated this
evening; that it is not fair to anticipate profits to show from the golf course
within this comparatively short period of time, but that the City Council must
consider the problem of the losses experienced and to take some steps. He stated
that he has not in the past, nor does he now, support sale of the golf course and
he feels the City has a moral responsibility to keep, in good faith, with those
property owners who purchased homes surrounding it. He voiced the opinion it is
possible, if the City takes the opportunity set forth it can sell some of the
acreage without destroying the play of the golf course, nor the open space and
attractiveness that the course provides; and out of the proceeds of that sale
relieve the City of its indebtedness. In addition, the City might be able to
gain a sufficient capital to make the improvements necessary to the golf course
which would make it easier to play and to build the library.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council go on record that they
will not, in fact, sell the golf course proper, but would retain this as an oper-
ational course. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1453
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 24~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council direct the Golf Course
Advisory Commission to continue its efforts to refine the proposal presented
and their recommendation to bring the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to break-even
status by 1982; to identify specifically those parcels they would recommend be
sold. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the City Council, the Planning Commission,
the Golf Course Commission and HACMAC adjourned.
Adjourned: 10:35 P.M.