1974/05/2874-537
AmaheimMain Library, 500 West Broadway
Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May~.,.28~ .1974~. 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheimmet in Adjourned Regular Session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneeias (e~tered at 11:00 A.li.~
and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
PRF~ENT: LIBRARY BOARD MEMBERS: Dahl, Stanton, Schultz, Hoover .and Hughes
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
LIBRARY DIRECTOR: William Griffith
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and explained the purpose of
the meeting was to hold a Joint City Council-Library Board work session.
The role of the Library Board, as defined in Section 908 of the City
Charter, was discussed. The Board is a recommending body and sends their recom-
mendations to the City Council through the Library Board Minutes. In order to
improve communication between Council and the Board, those matters requiring
specific action by the Council should be set apart from the minutes in the form
of a resolution. Council would then take appropriate action on the necessary items.
Bill Griffith, Library Director, queried the Council about how actively
should the Library Board pursue provisions of Section 908.
Letters "d" through "g" of Section 908 pertain to monies and are, there-
fore, matters of the Budget process. Normal budget procedure is for the Chairman
of the Library Board and Bill Griffith to present their budget tO the City Manager.
After budget discussions, Mr. Griffith reports outcome of sessions to the Board.
If the Board feels strongly about certain items in the proposed budget which have.
been cut back or deleted, they can make the'appropriate presentation to Council at
the time of the budget public hearing. Communication from the Board to Council,
other than Just financial figures, on a proposed.budget was determined to be
appropriate, especially if a philosophy needed to be expressed.
Letter "a" pertaining to the operation and conduct of City libraries was
felt to be a prerogative of the Library Board, City Manager and Library Director
with the exception of changes in policy which would then require Council approval.
Rules and regulations for the administration and protection of City
libraries were approved by Council as required under Letter "b" of Section 908
shortly after the Charter was adopted. Any changes i~ policy necessitating changes
and/or additions to the current rules and regulations would require Council approval.
In regard to Letter "c" relative to the Board recommending to Council the
duties and qualifications of the librarian and other officers and employees of the
libraries, Mr. Griffith stated he'felt this area has not been clearly defined since
the Charter was adopted. Mr. Murdoch briefed the background of the method in
determining the duties and qualifications, noting that in 1955 the City employed
a consultant who performed an extensive job description analysis, resulting in
various job classifications. The consultant and Personnel Director worked with the
Library Board and Library Director on those job descriptions pertaining to library
personnel. Any recommended changes by the Board in duties and qualifications of
Library personnel should be worked out through the Library and Personnel Directors.
He pointed out that subsequent to adoption of the Charter, State law has changed
considerably, requiring a more active relationship between employer and employee
organizations and it was felt this could be a~ministered by a City Management
Representative who was cognizant of applicable State laws.
In answer to questions raised, the Council stated they definitely would
like recommendatiohs from the Board on duties and qualifications of Library person-
nel since the Board is familiar with other library systems and techniques.
Councilman Seymour added he felt that the Library Board should perform
a Job audit and then work in consort with the Personnel Department to insure that
the desired skills of library personnel are incorporated into other similar job
descriptions wherever feasible.
Following brief discussion relative to annual salary review by th~
Library Board, the City Manager pointed out that the Meyers-Milias-Bro~m Act
requires speci£ic methods of salary negotiations which are contrary to what has
74-537-1
Anaheim Main Library, 5,00 West Broadway,
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES .- mY 28, .!974, 10:00 A.M.
been suggested. Having the Board responsible for annual salary review places them
in a negotiating unit position which may be a luxury the City could not afford
during salary negotiations, however, some method of input from the Board to
City's negotiating unit should be provided. Prior to establishing a method, some
input from the Personnel Director would be desirous in light of'the fact that any
action taken by the Library Board is public and as such the C~ty may.jeopardize
its negotiating position.
The City Attorney shared Mr. Murdoch's concern and felt there would be
built-in conflicts, citing a hypothetical situation wherein management and labor
agree on a salary level and when it is presented to the Library Board, they dis-
agree. Salary discussion, however, would best be conducted under Letter "i",
exercise such other functions not inconsistent with this Charter as may be pre-
scribed by ordinance, rather than under Letter "c". Recommending duties and
qualifications are the direct responsibility of the Library Board, however,
salaries are not.
Letter "h", within sixty days after the close of each fiscal year, report
to the Council on the condition of the libraries for the preceeding fiscal year
and on such other matters deemed expedient by the Library Board, was construed to
mean a narrative report, rather than a statistical report, since a financial audit
is performed on all City Departments by a consulting firm employed by Council. A
response from Council on the submitted report was suggested in order to provide
definitive direction to.the Library Board.
Setting up a Joint meeting between the Council and the Board to convey
the condition of the libraries was suggested and it was determined that joint
meetings could be scheduled on at least an annual basis to comply with Letter "h",
and on-an as-needed basis to up-date short and long-range planning.
Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz briefed the recommendations of the Library Sub-
committee of the 1959 Public Buildings Committee and the subsequent results. She
also pointed out the achievement level of the Library Board relative to the 1968
-Citizens' Committee recommendations, noting some goals have not been reached by
the anticipated time schedules. It was suggested that perhaps it is incumbent upon
the Board to review and update She items of priority, thereby,, placing them in
their proper perspective.
The feasibility of locating an elementary school facility and library
facility in a single structure, with separate operational systems, was discussed
noting the possibility of locating park, school and library facilities at ~mpe~ial
Highway and Nohl Ranch Road. The concept was favorably received as long as the
structure was designed sensitive to the needs of each entity, parking, access and
operations both during day and evening, hours being noted as areas of concern to
the City. The City Manager was given approval to explore the feasibility of a com-
bined park, school and library facility.
REgarding Sites A and B in-the hill and canyon area, Mr. Griffith advised
the sites were recommended to be acquired on the basis of the rapid development
anticipated. Since development at this time is immature in the hill and canyon
area, it is impossible to specify exactly where the sites should be.
Of highest priority is the Euclid Street branch library size. The
method of financing must be determined. If it ks to be by bonds and placed on the
November ballot, the County must be notified by the first week in August. ~ joint..
parks and library bond issue was suggested.
In answer to the Council's question relative to the Board's preferred ·
method of financing construction of the Euclid Street library site, Mr.' Hughes
stated a joint bond issue with parks and recreation would be highly desirable.
The Board's prime concern is reaching the required 66 2/3 majority to pass a bond-
issue and offered as a more realistic approach the possibility of a joint venture,:
such as the Joint Powers agreement between Full~rton and the County of Orange,
wherein 50%, plus one vote, is required to pass the bond issue. As the conclusion
of the discussion, Council requested the Board to review"and rank accordingly the
alternative methods of financing preferred, together'with the amount of construc-
tion to be accomplished under the methods, as soon as possible. .
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn.
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:50 A.M.
Deputy City Clerk ~
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
The City Council of the City of Aali~im met te gllallr #~41Oll.
ABSKIff: CGqlEIL I~I~IS: None.
PRKSEIOT: CITY MANAGe: Eeith A. Murdoch
CITY ATT(BilKY: Alan R. Matte
DEPUTY CITY Cl.l~lalq: Linde D. Roberts
CITY EHGIIe~: James P. Maddox
ASSISTAWf DIIKCT~ OY ~ SK1¥IC~S: Rouald ~empeou
Z(IJl]JG SUP~VIS(R: Charles Roberts
~ SUPERVISOR: Don NclMniel
KLKCTRICAL SUPKR~: Ceorse H.. Eduards
FIRE MiRSRALL: B. C. Phillips
Mayor Thou called the meetins to order.
~d6!~_~L~: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the asseubly in Cho Plod~ of
Alle$iance to the Fla$.
SUPervisor Ralph Clark presSUred Mayor Thou "8 eboek in. th° '
amount of approximately $10,000 uhich is · portiou of ~he County's
share of Revenue Funds pledsed tovards the developmnt of Tull& Reid
Park.
Supervisor Clark related chat the Oranse County Board. of Supervisors
is the only Board of Supervisors vhich Kas such · pro,ramCo share
their ReVenue Sharing Funds. He advised that the~ inausur&ted this
pro,ram because they recognize that 85% of the. Caz i~l~d~'are col-
lected from the'incorporated 'areas of the Co~nty and.rather
place ~11 of their Revenue Sharin~ Funds into Ci~mty; pro~ramo,
they decided to share some of these monies villi' the cities.
Mayor Thom accepted the check on behalf of the City vithuuch
appreciation.
R~SOLUTI~Bi QF r~A~TtA?ImiS: Resolution of ConSretuleCious i.e. the [l~ific
Telephone and Telegraph Company on the occasto~ of the laltallition
of their one millionth telephone instrument in OrlnSe ~4~ty and
for loyal and professional services to this com~nityvas ummi-
mously adopted by the City Council and presaged by,nysE Thom to
Hr. C. Johnston, ~eneral ManaKer.
ldI]i~IES: Htnutes of the Anaheim City Council tabular met'l~lsbld April 30,
vere approved on motion by Councilvoman Ka~eood, seconded by Councilmen
· Sneegas, HOTIOtt CARRIED.
~LIY~.BE~DIMC- C~DIIIAalCESAIiDLESOLIrfI~iS: Councilman l~bloymoved to valve
the readin8 in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that co, ant to
the vaiver of readin8 is hereby seven by all Council Mml~r! unless, ifter
readin$ of the title, specific request is mlde by a Council Nim~er for the
readin8 of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sn~qas seconded the
motion. HOTIOIiCABRIED.
amount of $1,7~5,727.51, in accordance rich the 1973-7& Budget, rare
approved.
1NITWATR piq~/ll_. F~RMTT APFLTC-I?Tfff: tkoplication filed by
~ Per ~ C~trol, for pemic to hrnl~ priva~ ~rol ~eo for
cb ~bile b ~ co be held aC the ~~ S~tmt
1074, us ~cc~ co~Cber ~Ch r~~Ci~
that said ~lC be deni~ subject co pr~lS{~ of
~elu ~icipal ~e.
Hr. Murdoch explained chat the nesaCive recoemeudaCion ia baldal oB
the fact. that the Applicant has failed to couply vtth etm St~Ce Ides by taki~
appropriate vritteu emLnatton and postinl bond.
Ou uociou by Couuctlmen Thou, sacoud~d by
City Council denied said application for private patrol
by the Chief of Police. HOTI011 CABIIED.
74- 538
City Ball, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MI~S - 111¥ 28, 19,74. 1:30
A~ISEI~NT gEVI~ES PER~frT: Application filed by Dale S. Menke, Inf-O-Rama Systems,
for amusement devices permit to allow various assorted amusement devices to be
installed at Shakey's Pizza, 1027 S. Harbor Boulevard, Was submitted and
granted subject to provisions of Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim Muni-
cipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police on motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
BiO'EST REGARDING REFUND OF FEE - UNDERGROUIiD~q~ECI~ICALFACILITIES IH T~E VICINITY
OF 501 E. I~HA~A HILLS DR~VE: Request of Mr. John G. Valentine, owner of the prop-
erty located at 501E. Peralta Hills Drive, for refund of the $73.00 charged by
the City of Anaheim for underground electrical facilities was submitted for
Council consideration, together with reports from the Electrical Superintendent
and City Attorney's Office, indicating that the charge was properly made and in
accordance with City Policy, and therefore recommending the refund claim be denied.
Mr. Valentine was recognized by the Mayor and related that he and
the property owner to the south mutually agreed to install underground electrical
service to their homes. In order to accomplish this, he stated, they were required
to pay for the substructure work, 'which he personally performed. He stated that
originally the owner of the property paid .a "book-up" fee and he understood that
if he chose voluntarily to install underground electrical facilities at this'
time, he would not be charged when and if the City converted to underground faci-
lities in his area. He advised that pursuant to City. invoice No. 324-6947 he
was charged $73.00 for underground service and he paid this under protest since
he feels he has been assessed twice for an electrical hook-upi and therefore this
$73.00 should be refunded to him.
Mr. Valentine, in addition, expressedopposition to the double standard
which exists whereby the City-requires a developer or property owner to install
underground eleCtrical utilities while the City of Anaheim installs overhead
feeder lines.
At the request of the Mayor, Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superin-
tendent, summarized his report and recommendation to Council regarding this
matter. He advised that the subject electrical undergrounding facilities were
installed in a private driveway, not a public right-of-way, and that it is the
policy under the Electric'Rates, Rules and Regulations to charge the differen-
tial cost for undergrounding on any private property. He reported that the
original charge made was for electrical service connection to the home and was
paid to Southern California Edison Company under their Rates, Rules and Regula-
tions. Mr. Edwards concluded that the policy always has been that the property
owner, paid the differential cost for the secondary underground conductor~ as
well as for the substructure work, and the $73.00 charge is for the conductors
and installation thereof.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Edwards explained the City of
Anaheim Electrical Utilities Policy regarding the cost of undergroundtng new
electric facilities, i.e., that the difference in cost between overhead and
undergxouud installation is paid by the abutting property owner for the facili-
ties installed, and in addition the substructures are required to be installed
aZ the developer or property owner's expense. As far as conversion is concerned,
Mr. Edwards indicated the only example is the Harbor Boulevard Project in which
the abutting property owners participated in the differential cost.
During Council discussion, Councilmen Seymour and Sneegas pointed out
that the policy has been established that the property owner is required to pay
the differential and any waiver or change in same would potentially result in
far reaching consequences, and therefore the Council could not properly refund
the fee as requested.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by COuncilwoman Kaywood,
the request made by Mr. Valentine for refund of the $73.00 paid pursuant to
City of Anaheim Invoice No. 324-6947 was denied. MOTION CARRIED.
Additional discussion was prompted on the subject of undergrounding
electrical lines during which Councilman Sneegas pointed out that in certain
areas of the City this could cost the abutting property owner as much as $360.00
par foot to undersround the existing 12 KV lines across his portion of property.
for t~ creitt~ of un~s~i~ districts, tb ~ of~ch m. co
c~r the under~ound c~ersion si~i~,
~en i~l~n~.
~. E~rds c~ents t~t the City of
existinE ~les. ~ related that ot~r cities bel~j ~~ ~ ~t~era
~lifornia Edith C~ are recei~n~
~t utility to be us~ for co~ersi~ to
~e b~efft ~ich the citizens are not r~eivi~ ~m t~ ~is Electric
Utility.
Hr. Edwards responded that the asreeumnt refereed to v~a the Public
Utilities Couanission decision in Case No. 8209 uhereby the privste utility
is required to place a percentage of their 8ross inc~e from residential
customers into a fund to be used in that co~mnity for undersroundtns. He
advised that the percentase set forth is 2% of the Seoss .residential income
divided by the total number of meters on the Edison system &o thio relates
to the number of meters' in the co~munity. Mr. Kdutrda advised that M~oa the
Kdison Company served a portion of the City of Anaheim. tho fu~im available .
under Case No. 8209 amounted to approximately $40- $50,000.00 per year for
13,000 customers. He stated that the benefits received pursuant to this
decision ~ould represent a much smaller bene£it than the 'citizens of Anaheim
receive as a result of o~ning their own electric utility.
Councilman Seymour concurred with Hr. Edwards, hoverer, he remarked
that he felt perhaps the City should be tskin$ a more positive attit~e touards
meeting the real need of conversion to under~round electrical systeua8, uhieh
is bein$ done to a much Kreater scale in the cities adjoining the Anaheim
boundaries.
RESOLOTIOH HO. 74R-246 - EuaaoA_~ PEnMIT HO. 73-19K: Subuitted by Hr, Bari V.
Nellesen, President, The Earl of Plumbins, Inc., requeltinl to ,permit an
overhead si~n to encroach over dedicated right-of~vay on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue, west of Loafs street.
Also submitted was report of the City Engineer'recoumendtng approval
of said request subject to the folloving conditionzz ·
1. Applicant to comply~rtth conditions called for in
Variance No.
2. Applicant to receive an encroachment permit framer he State
Division of Highways, as Lincoln Avenue is-still a Sta~eHis4muy.
RESOLOTIOE Il)..76i-246: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Bo. 761-2&6
for adoption granting Encroachment Permit No. 73-19E subject, to ~ha conditions
reco~ended by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTI0~ OF THE crct COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AIIA~IM API~0q~3~ TItB TERMS
~ coeDrfi0es oF AN ElJCR~ FERNIT AB1) AUTHORIZIIIG THE H&YOR ABD CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID EIJCR~ FERMIT~'JI'TH VALB(K~ ~ (73'19E).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: CGUIE[L I~IqBKRS: Eayaood, Seyuour, l~bley, Sn6o~ and Thou
F~Uiv, umDTud~eBO. 7_r,A_A: Developer, Pacesecter Homes, luc,; tr~C locaCd~
the~rth side of~hlmAvenue, ~eC of Faint bled, c~lui~
72 ~5,~ z~ lots.
The City Engineer recomended approval and repeated chat enid
final neap conforms substantially with the tentative mop lersTtouoly'q~roved,
the bond~ hsve-been posted and approved by'.the. C~ty ACk.ajay a~d required
fees p~id.
76-540
City Ball. Anaheim. California '- COUNCIL M~NUTES - May 28. 1974. 1:30
On reconsaendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Pebley moved that
Final Nap Tract NO. 7666 be approved. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
NOTIOI~CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF FINAL FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS.-TRACT NO, 7730. REVISIO~ NO. 3: As
recommended by Development Services Department, on motion by Councilman Pebley,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the final floor plans and elevations for Tract
No. 7730, Revision No. 3, (excluding lot Nos. i through 6 ~hich were previously
approved February 12, 1974) were approved as required by Condition No. 5 of
Resolution No. 72R-140. (Tract located on the north side of Santa Ann Canyon
Road, opposite Hohler Drive, east of Imperial Highway). t40TION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3265: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3263 for adoption
(First Reading held February 5, 1974). ~
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM I~JNICIPAL
CODE P~IATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30(2), R-I)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL I~HBERS:
COUNCIL I~HBERS:
COUNCIL I~MBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Hayor declared Ordinance No. 3263 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLIITIONNO. 74R-247 - REVISING CONDITIOES OF APPROVAL. RECIA$~IFICATION NO. 63-64-5:
· he Deputy City Clerk reported that extension of time having been granted to
Reclassification No. 63-64-5, pursuant to Council action at the meeting of
Nay 21, 1974, it is necessary to amend Resolution Nos. 63R-713 and 68R-599
pertaining to Reclassification No. 63-64-5 to impose revised and updated con-
dition~ of approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-247: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R'247 for
adoption amending Resolution Nos. 63R-713 and 68R-599 granting Reclassification
No. 63-64-5 to amend conditions of approval as follows:
1. That a final tract map of subject property be recorded in the
office of the Orange County Recorder.
2. That the o~ner(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.
3.' That trash storase areas shall be provided in accordance with
· pproved plans 'on file in the office of the Director of Public WOrks, prior
to final building inspection.
4. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed within the
wsterly boundary of subject property adjacent to the Riverside Freeway.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
·nd deter~ined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
co, acne--st of structural framing.
6. '~hat all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
~mner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
9. That prior to the introduction o£ an'ordinance rezoning subject
property, the developer shall submit precise development plans to the Planning
Co~ission and City Council for approval.
10. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 above mentioned, shall be
co, lied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resoluti°n Book.
A RESOLF~ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AI~/NDING RESOLUTION
I~OS. 6~i~- 713 AND 68R- 599 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 63- 64- 5.
74- 541
City P~all. Armheiu: C~lifornLa- trainee_IL prmePE~ - Nay 28. !9~7&. 1:30 P.Mt
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOGS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ~q~KRS:
COUNC~ I~NBKRS:
COUNCIL ~ERS:
layeood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 7&R-2~7 duly passed and adopted.
ClaAw~e rmneu HO. 2 - ~Fftg.fl~rd~ HOt. 55~- z.~S ~ ~A~[~: ~. ~orge
E~ards, K~ectrical ~pertnt~euC, report~ ~at the r~uested ~e ~der
No. 2 for ~ork ~der No. 5538 (~io S~reet
$~7,766.25 to the ~rd Electric C~y, %nc. Headvt~d tha~ ~he reason for
the increase is ~he phas~n~ of ~st~ a~ c~st~ct~-~the ~bstati~. He
no,ed ~t ~en bids were accepted ~d ~he oriel c~r~ ~rd~, certain
[~s could not be included in ~ desi~. He s~ated ~ha~ with ~he additional
sum of ~ney re~es~ed in ~his chan~e order, ~he proJec~ is s~ll.wi~hin ~he
budgeted ~nds and wi2h[n ~he Job
Hr. Nurdoch added that although several of the items left out were
'known to be required atthe time of bids, ~hey were purposely deleted so as
not to receive abnormal estimates from the bidders.
On recommendation of the Electrical Superintendent and City Engineer,
Councilman Seymour moved that.Change Order No.'2 of Work Order No. 5538, Lewis
Street Substation, an increased contract amount of $47.,7~6.~5 be authorized.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion. NOTION CARRIED.
~ FepoFZ ~d rec~nda~on o~ ~e Ci~F E~ineer, C~cil~ ~~d that
a 72-~rkinFday extension o~ tim to ~rk ~der ~. 1~3 be ~proved ~or
to~al liquide~ed d~ses of 20 days, a~ the re~e of $25.~ p~ daF, or
vtth additional deduction of $670.~6 for ~8es re~ttinK to ~e inter,or of
the building during the extended contract. Council~n Se~ur seconded the
~ti~. ~I~ ~D.
Aui~mmT OBJECTZr~: The Deputy City Clerk reported that in response
to ~he notices.proposing removal of noxtous.'aw~oy~h (weiSs) fr°m certain
property in the City of Anaheim, thirty-one letters of protest have been
received.
The following persons addressed the Council representing themselves
and ocher individual homecqmers in the Westridge Tract of Anahetu Hills, who
had received wed abatement notices relative to noxious growth sa slope banks:
Ray Talmadge, 425 ~estridge Circle; georse Boyadsieff, 5386 Rural Ridge Circle;
.Mrs. Kevin Kershaw, 5~16 ~illoeick Circle; Sa~es Laurin, 5362 Rural Ridge
Circle; Manuel Don, 5~01Willowick Drive.
The primary points of objection brought up by these individuals
were as ~ollovs:
1. That the slope banks were hydromulcheduith incorrect seed
mixtures causing excessive weed growth.
2. That the ground ~as not adequately prepared prior to hydro-
mulching.
3. That the Developer, grant Company of California, failed to cmn*
plete his obligation to turn over to the homeowners a properly planted slope:
to prevent erosion for maintandmce by ~id Immeowner.
. &. That if these slopes were relinquished to tho homeowners respon-
sible with acceptable or adequate, ground cover, the homeomters uould at least
have had an even chance at maintaining sams.
5. That the slopes were never ~redIZed with a selective weell killer
following hydromulching.
6. That certain of the slope banks ara Lwrge, steep, and access
to same is difficult for non-professional maintenance, also the Job requires
a great deal of time.
7. That inadequate instruction was given the hcmemmers regarding
slope maintenance.
8. That with the hydro~ulch technique, so mmly different .types of
plant species were introduced that the layman found it di£ftcult, if not
impossible, to differentiate between weeds and desirable ground cover.
7/i.- 5~.2
CitY Rail. Ahab-is. California - C-_fJ~__-IL InlOT~S -liav 28. 1974. 1:~O F.N
9. That hydromulchin~ is a ney technique which isnot yet proven,
and il considerably less costly than hand planting, which has more predictable
results.
10. That the timing of the last hydromulch spraying (latter part of
November) conducted during the rainy season was iminent that a rapid ~rowth
seed mix be utilized.
In support of the property owners' Position, Nr. Talmedge submitted
color photographs take~ of slopes in the general area indicating a marked dif-
ference in appearance of these slopes. He contended that although'the wind
factor may have played a part in the current weed ~rovth, it is not logical
that the wind would be as selective as to deposit the used seeds only in parti-
cular areas. In addition, he submitted a petition si~ned by area' residents
statin~ that due to inadequate preparation of the slo~e, banks, weed content of
the ~round cover installed, lack of adequate sprinkler systems, there vas
failure of ~rovth of the ~round cover and the ~rant Company of California Hhould
be required to re-plant these slopes with an appropriate lay maintenance ground
cover. Further, he advised that the Westridge Homeouners request, the Council's
assistance in assuring a fair starting point by not releasing the landscaping
bonds until theslopes are stripped, the soil properly prepared and replanted
with ~round cover.
Copies of survey questionnaires initiated by individual Westridge
Honeovners in an attempt to ascertain the-extent and type of difficulties the
property owners are experiencin~ withslope maintenance were also submitted
for Council information.
In addition, ~r. Boyagieff submitted color photographs illustrating
his slope back and that of his adJoinin~ neighbor, vhich are markedly disparate
in types and color of foIia~e, and vhich he felt supports his contention that
the subcontractor vho performed the hydromulching had made an error vith the
seed mixture used on his slope.
RepresentinA the City Staff to give points of information regarding
,this matter was Hr. Don ltcDaniel, Plannin~ Supervisor, who remarked that he
felt a portion of the current problem to be attributable to the fact thatthe
Hillside ~radtn~ Ordinance was vrittenat a time when hydroeeedin~ vas not an
acceptable method for planting hillside slopes and therefore the period of
responsibility assigned the landscape contractor is not of sufficient duration
for this technique. He related that the Hillside Grading Ordinance as it re-
lates to landscapin~ standards is currently bein~ re-written and such potential
provisions as a mandatory homeouners association for slope maintenance in all
projects includin~ sin~le-family detached homes, the possibility of requiring
a bond, posted by the developer and transferred to the homeowner's association,
are betn~ considered. Another possibility would be not to accept hydromulchin$
or seeding as a technique for planting slope banks, but Hr. llcDaniel recommended
against this. as the technique does appear to have a ~reat deal of validity and,
in certain instances, this type of seed applicationvorks very veil.
Hr. NcDaniel further explained that he did not think it would be
possible at this point in time to determine, by {nspection of the condition of
the slopes~ whether or not the contractor had performed the Job correctly.
Fire XnepecCor Fred Fosaek of the Anaheim Fire Department reported
'to Couocil that as far as the City's current Weed abate~nt pro~rlun is concerned,
they do not have a contractor equipped to remove the veetls ~roe these banks which
were cited, because of the inacceseabtlity and steepness of the slopes,
In response to the Has,sunera cc~ants, Xr. T°n~ Allen, President of
~ha ~ra~t Company or,life, ia, as~red ~il nd tho~ tn the audience tht
t~ is ~e tn~i~ of hie ~i~ ~o resolve ~he problm ~Ch ~ ~er8 and
co pr~de ~m~ ~c allilt~ b c~Id ~a~e ~~t basis. He
~lai~ ~t ~e ol~ Plntt~ ns ~bcontracted ~d 8aid c~t~ct had a 9~
~ym~t~e ~~t ~bse~t to i~tallati~, ~ that his c~y
h~ recei~ c~tlftcati~ ~ the Sc~ Se~ C~y ~d ~a ~ndsc~e,
~ ~~actor, aa to the c~t~t o~ the ee~ mixture ue~.
74-5~3
City Rsll. i,,skatm. California - C0s]ua. IL pTNUTES - Na~ 28. 1974. 1:30 P.M,
~. Allen stressed the ~inion that a large ~rt of the current
condition of the slopes is due to i~toper ~inte~nce by t~ ~ers and
in particula~ a failure to irrigate these on a re, lac ~is. ~ refuted to
s~eral areas ~ich are still the tes~nsibiltty of~ ~mt ~y~thin
this tract and stated that those Slopes are in 8ood condition because of the pr~
~er,~intenance techniques. He 'advised :hat in retrospec$~ it ~uld have been
a~ch better procedure to vest responsibility for mint~auee of the slopes
on Nohl ~nch Road~as well as the major slopes ~thin the trac~ with the
o~ers' Association. le r~rked that he feels this to be the ultiste solu-
tion ahd that he has requested bids for such a contrast fr~ f~r different
l~dscape ~intenance c~anies ~iih are to be submitted to the H~ers~
Association for their consideration. He stated that one of the independent
l~dscape contractors has a~ised that if there were 12 acres of sl~es
the tract~ the ~inte~nce could be done at a cost of s~re between $1.50
to ~3.00 per house per ~nth.
~. Allen e~latned that he has requested the ~~rs'
to have the people involved place in witini~at their specific problems are,
and ~e Grant C~any ~uld review these individually to inure that adequate
spri~let systms are installed and~rkable. ~ :~o~i=~ the re~ousibility
of both~e Gr~t C~y and the individuil h~o~tS for eettala~ttious of
teplantini~ich my be nec.eSsay, indicatin~ that his fi~eult e~plant those
b~ks ~ic~ despite proper ho~o~er ~inten~c~ have failed to
~. 5ohn~llick, representin8 a~ei~ tills, Inc., related that
they had prepared a landscape study for the City of~hetm ia order to e~
courage the City to ch~ge the existing ordi~nce ,as it relates to slope
planting. Althou&h this att~pt was not successful, he noted they still
advocate at ltaff level, the use of the hydr~lch technique for planting of
~ound cover. He e~lained :hat one of the advautaEes of this technique is
that the seed has no incubation period other t~n in the soil'inlid it
· ultimtely placed and therefore no readJust~nt or s~k~:sltiq frs
far from nursery conditions to ~:ural conditions occurs. ~ e~latned that
the hydr~lching technique allows :he seed to be introduced into sterile soil
~ich has been prepared, since the seed mix itself contains fertilizer ed,
additives. He e~lained that :ha'use of a pr~e~rgent herbicide on the sl~es
~uld control the dormant weed seed but would obviate the use of the h~r~lch
technique. ~ey have e~erienced ~re success vi:h ~ering the slope and
tually ~o~ng weeds for a~ile~and then sprayi~th a post-~rEent herbi-
cide prior to applyin8 the hydr~lch.
~tiq extensive discussion of chestier b~en :~cil ~ the
interested patties, C~ncil~ Pebley pointed'out ~at the ptevims set of
the~eim Bills area, ~. N°hl, ~en he used his property for a~i~ltural
purposes, planted ~y different t~es of seed to create ~azi~ areas for
his ei~ls and these do~t seeds ~y-be a conttibuto~ reas~ to ~e current
probl~.
Counctl~ ~~ ~s e~ressly co~e~d t~t witten taster.
irons te~tdin& sl~e minte~nce be prepared a~ posted in the ~. She
indicated tha~ she did not feel verbal inscncctonf as ~tling bye. Allen
ute efficient.
The Council also senerally eXPressed couceru that if the weeds were
pulled out by the roots as is the generally accepted uethod for reUOval, this
~ould also tend to pull out large clumps o~. earth vhich ug~ht lead to erosion
o~ the s.lopes.
At the conclusion of Council discussion, the City.Attorney advisod
that the Council could properly take one of three actions this date: (1)
declare that there are no weeds; . (2) 'to direct the FSFe:.i~~t ~
nent its weed abatement Pro,ram; (3) to continue.the bW':~t~..
period o~ time with the expectation that some s°luttonmay be arrived at in
the lntetie.
It vas the general concensus of Council optniou ~t the miter
uould have to be continued in order to at~t ~o resolve tim problem,~nd
Fire Marshall Bob Phillips recommended, due to the fire base~l at ~his'-tiue
of year, that the matter not be continued for more ~ t~eo voeks.
Il
74-544
City Hall. Anaheim. California - C(~__~m_-IL lfr~TRg - Hay 28. ~7%, 1:30 P.M
Hr. Tony Allen advised Council that his company is engaged in removal
of the weeds from some of the major areas involved in the weed abatement notices,
particularly the area on the perimeter of ~he project and the area above these
houses,as well as the easterly end. In addition, they are also doing weed removal
on Nohl Ranch Road. He indicated that he felt with proper watering the plant
materials left on these slopes after weeding would propagate additional ground
cover and that this should alleviate some of the immediate fire hazard problem.
Mr. John Hillick added that Anaheim Hills, Inc., has recently completed
a major fire Break program and all existing fire breaks have Been bladed and put
into good condition. These fire Breaks include the area adjacent to the Westridge
tract and should provide a good Buffer zone.
Councilman Seymour stated that he felt the two weeks recommended by the
Fire Marshall would be an insufficient amount of ti~e and further noted that if
the Council were to direct removal of these weeds this date it would take at
lease two weeks Just to receive bids for such a contract. Councilman Seymour
thereupon moved that the Council grant a 3e-.day continuance at which time City
Council will be informed as what specific actions it may take in the event the
problem is not resolved relative tb the weed abatement/itself, maintenance
problems, andconditipn of the slopes; f~rther to allow time for the developer
to receive the-individUal analyses of problems On;particular Iota; and for
Development Ser~.ices Department. to make-field inspection to determine whether
or not there is any possibility of determining if the site development standards
were met. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
In answer to inquiry made by NfS. Jean Morris, 400 TorreY Pines Circle,
as to where the responsibility lies for maintenance of the 30-foot, 12 k'V line
easement above her property, which is planned to be used for riding and hiking
trails, the City Manager responded that until such time as the City accepts the
easement deeds, this responsibility vould rest with the underlying property
owners. He explained that it is planned to form a district when these riding
and hiking trails are installed so as to share the cost of this maintenance'
among the participants of the district itself.
There was no further discussion on-weed abatement proceedings.
RE,SS: Councilwoman KaYW°ndmoved for a five-minute recess. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. NOTION CARRIED. (3:45 P.M.)
~: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all members of the City
Council being present. (3:50 P.N.)
FIRkL i~P-- APPROVAL ~F FL(NI PIANSAI~DRI=~fATI~ ~tCT~. 8159: Developer, Lusk
Corporation; tract located on the nor'th side of lqohl Ranch Road, east of Nohl
Canyon Road; containing 45 R-H-10,O00 Zoned lots.
Development Services Depart~nent submitted a recommendation that the
final floor plans and elevations as presented be approved.
The City Engineer recmmnended approval of the final map and reported
that said map conforms substantially wi~h the tentative map previously approved,
that bonds have bee6 forwarded to' the City Attorney for .approval and required
fees paid.
Councilwoman Kaywood, noting that the proposed homes are rather large,
stated that she was concerned as to ~hether any of these homes would be con-
strutted wi~h a 6- to 10-foot setback and no street parking. She inquired how
m~ny homes in Tract No. 8153 ~ould. h~ve the6- to 10-foot setback.
Hr. Roberts rep$ied that ont of ~he subdivision of 45 houses, 13 would
have ~ara~e setbacks of bet~e~en 6 ~m4 10'fe~t ~ the right-of-way line of the
street. He pointed out that almost in every instance the streets are single
accesap ~ich leaves the opposite side available for on-street parking.
In ~nmeer to Councilvoman Kaywood*8 query as to whether or not it
would be possible to adjust the plot plans so as to remove the 6- to 10-foot set-
backs on these 13 homes, Mr. Don Steffuns®n of the Lusk Corporation advised that
74--565
City 11~11. ~heim. California = COIi~IL E~EITIS- ~av 28. 197~.. 1:~ P.~-'
~s ~re situated ~ the lo~s as indicaC~ because of the d~h o~ the loc
~ the ~sk Cor~raCi~s mini~m rear yard requir~nCs. He sCat~ .that he
c~ld not comic to r~l of any o~ these at this t~~ igtcitg no
obJecti~ to attiring to ~rk with the City Staff ~o elimi~te the~ if
possible ~h~t Jeopardizing rear yard require~n~s. ~e requested ~hat
~ncil no~ continue ~he ~er since his fi~ is a~i~s ~o record ~heir
trot and proceed vi~h ~he project.
Councilv~n ~ood related that ~he 6 ~o l~f~ setbacks do
~t creat~ any additional space on the street and ~. cr~e probl~s ~en .
f~ilies h~e ~l~iple cars. Since ~ch citizen dissa~isf~ion h~ been
dirtied to her regarding this probl~, she felt .that ~e ~ld like to
preven~ it ~erever possible.
On recommendation of the Development Services Depart~nent and City
Engineer, CounCilman Pebley moved that final floor plans and elevations and
the final map Tract No. 8153 be approved subject to ~pproval of required
bond by the City Attorney. Councilman Thom seconded.the motion, MOTIGH
CARRIED.
~rt~ T~- C__t~q~ ~N ~ N~~qT TMI~TAT. ABI~A: Zoni~ 'SuPerVi~or Roberts
reported that a grading permit has been requested in connection with
construction of industrial building complex .to be located at' 5571-5625
East La Palms Avenue (north side of La Palms Avenue, westerly of Inperial
Highway). Subject property is within the Scenic Corridor zone and, there-
fore, while it would otherwise qualify for a categorical exemption from the
preparation of an E.I.R., no such provision is included in. the guidelines
for the Scenic Corridor zone.
On motion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
the City Council found that this project will have no si~nificant effect on
the environment and, therefore, is exempt from the requirement-es prepare an
environment~l imPact report. .MOTION CAI~IED.
~m~ COt~NTY USE P~.R~T NO. ~511: Zoning Supervisor Roberts reported that notice
has been received from the Orange County Planning Department indicating that
the County Zoning Administrator will consider on May ~0, 197&, a request to
permit a general contractor's storage yard and the temporary use of a com-
mercial coach (trailer) for office use for a period of one year 'on un~ncOr-'
porated M-1 Zoned property located on the south side of Coronado Street,
east of Red 6~un Street, which is adjacent to the City of Anaheim border on
three sides.
lit. Roberts added that in conjunction with ~his request, the peti-
tioner plans to store approximately 20 pieces of construction equipment,
without screening except for a chain link fence. The property is to be
treated with chemical or oil fill for dust control.
1~. Roberts advised that the Development Services Depar~nent recom*
mendationvould be that the Council request ~he Or&n$~ County ZoningAdminis-
trator to deny Orange County Use Permit No. 3511. on the basis that it does not
conform to development standards of Anaheim's Industrial Zone; however, if
the use is permitted,that subject property be developed to City of Anaheim
M-1 Zone sSte development standards.
On motion by Councilwman'Eaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
the City Council concurred with the rec~ndation of !the Developumnt Services
Depar~nent and directed it to be forwarded to the Orange Coun~yZonin$
Administrator wi~h further notation that it is a 'foregone conclusion that
o~td proper~y will ultimately be annexed to the City o£ Anaheim. MOTION
~ CITY .~um~n ~er~y: The City Manaser reported tha~ inasmuch as no bids
were received for any of ~he eleven parcels legally advertised for sale by
the Cl~y per Council directive of April 2, 197~, (co~plete list of said
parcels shown in Council linutes April 2, 1~?~, page ?~31~), it would be
ia order to an~horize the City Right-of-Way Division to negotiate fo~ sale
o£ laidproperttes.
74-546
City l i all. Anaheim. California - C0611ClL~Krn~S - May 28. 1974. ~;30
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
City Council authorized the Right-o&Way Division to negotiate for sale of
the eleven parcels considered surplus to the City's needs; said negotiations
and sales subject to approval by the City Council. HOTION CARRIED.
RESOLIITI(RtNO. 74R-2~8 - DGEDS OF EAS~: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution
No. 74R-248 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOI/ITI0~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF ANAi~IH ACCE~TIN~ CERTAIN
9KEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Texaco Ventures, Inc.; Anaheim 'Hills,
Inc.; Minnie F. Ingram; Mark A. Stephenson and Beulah J. Stephenson; Violet
V. Wright; Theodore J. Smith and Aleeta J. Smith& and LeRoy Heitman and
Susan Heitman.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:. Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUI~L I~MBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~ERs: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-248 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-249 - AC__C~PT_ING _TK~_~. DEEDS - STATE O~ rA~.IFORNIA.(T.A~. C01!~CTORS
SAL~ NO. 1152): councilman Thomoffered Resolution No. 74R-249 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING FROHTHE'
STATg OF CALIF(~NIA THRF~ DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF AHAH~IM C~RTAIN
R~AL P~OPERTY FOR I~JNICIPAL PURPO~S. (AP Nos. 360-171-01, 232'011-01 and
127-181-21)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
N OE S:
ABSENT:
C(ENClL ~iq~B~RS:
COUNCIL. ,I~HBERS:
COUNCIL I~S:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-249 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF KO, lPg- 4-~EL FLATR~D TRUCK (SCOOI~R): The City Hanager reported
on the recon~nended purchase of one 4-vheel flatbed.truck (scooter) for use at
the Stadium and advised that the Cushman Notor'Company has submitted a quota-
tion for said equipment in the amount of ~2,796.28 including tax. He there-
upon recommended the purchase be authorized.
Onmotion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
purchase of one 4-vheel flatbed truck from Cushman Motor Company in the amount
of $2,796~28, including tax, vas authorized. NOTION CARRIED.
Cme~S~Ol~.: The follovin8 correspondence vas ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. City of Buena Park - Resolution No. 5282 - Ur$in$ opposition
to Proposition 5 on the June 4, 1974 ballot.
b. City of Garden Grove - Resolution No. 4567-74 - Urging the
California State Legislature to approve Assembly Bill 3924 vhich would autho-
rize cities to levy a 5% "Tippler's Tax".
c. City of Stanton - Resolution No. 74-21 - Urging opposition
to Proposition § on the June 4, 1974 ballot.
d. City of Stanton - Re.solutionNo. 74-23 - Wtthdraving from the
Joint l~aeers Agreement of 1973 betveen the cities of Anaheim, Chino, and
Stanton, creating, the Chino Hills Airport Authority.
e. Comaunity Center Authority - Minutes - May 7~ 1974.
mr~~-CITY OF l~l~mT ~ m~sOIIITIONNO. 8253 - STATE TAX RRLTRF: On
motionby Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City A~torney
7~5~?
Councils Thou offered OrdlMnee B~. 330! for &~optton.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AB 0BD~ (~ TBE CITY OF ABM~ A]~I~DIBg TITLE l&~ CBAFTg~ 32,
SBCTI~ 1&.32.272 (1) and (n) RELAT~ TO ~ l~tll~ ~
HO~S RESTRICTED. (Lltbeth Avmme and Bordiea Stroot)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEBT:
~IL
C~JNC IL ~NBERS:
C02~IL l~Nm~tS:
Bone
None
The Nayor declared Ordimmce Bo. 3301 duly-pameed' ~ Me, ted.
330?: ~ Council~omn Eaym~d offered Ordin~nce HO. 3302 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance. Book.
~tD~ OF Tl~ CITY OF AB~IN AI~BDII~ TITLE 1~i ,OF 'T~'~
14~qlCIPAL CODE RELATINC TO
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: C(~q~CI~ MRS:
lJ0KS: COUIUC IL
ABSENT: cOUNCIL ~I4BERS:
(61-62-69(69),' 1~I)
Kay~ood, Seymmr, l~ebloy, <eella and Thom
Noue
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3302 duly palled ami miop~ed.
~II~BCE BO. 3303: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance ltD. 3303 ~'or mioption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AH DEDIHAHCE OF THE CITY OF AB6HEIH AIfHD~ TITLE I8 01~ 'THE' AJt~B~
I~'NICZPAL CODE RELATI]JG TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CGUIEZL
CGUHCZL I~I~KRS:
COOl, IL
(73- 7~-29,
The Mayor. declaced Ordinance ISo, 3303. duly pioild-iud adopted.
33~.: Counciluin Seymour offered Ord~Lnincm mo, 3304 for adoption.
lefer to Ordin~nce Book.
~C~ ~ ~L~ TO ZGIzr,.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
141S:
ABfEIIT:
(69- 70,-37, ~'0)
The Nayor declared OrdinJnce NO. 330& duly pidfid end Mopted,
_1_10_5: CouictlSln bill offered 0ediJillsi'lb, 330S for .ode/tim.
lefer co OrdJJmnce Book,
74-548
City Hall. Anaheim. California -COUNCIL,MII~JTES - May 28. 1974. 1:30 P.M~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING.TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
I~NICIPAL coDE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-33, C-1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL I~'MBERS:
COUNCIL I~MBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, SneegaS. and Thom
None
None
The Mayqr declared Ordinance No. 3305 duly passed and adopted.
PROPOSED LEASE - ANAHE~HI~ C~)LF COURSE PROPERTY, FOREQUESTRIANCENTER: The
City Manager related that discussion of the proposed lease of five'acres of
City-owned property adjacent to the Anaheim Hills Golf Course for purposes of
developing an interim equestrian center held on April 30, 1974, was continued
because of concern by members, of the City Council that subject property might
be appraised at a greater valuethan $12,O00 per acre as shown in the original
draft for said lease, and further, because of request made on that date to
Anaheim Hills, Inc., to consider use of this property to establish a permanent,
not temporary, equestrian facility.
In response to these concerns, Mr. Muedoch outlined the proposed
changes to the lease agTeement which included deletion of ~he option to extend
the term, which would implement moving of said facility at the end of the five-
year period.or sooner; and amendment to provide rental at either 10% of $12,000
per acre or-!0% of the appraised value, whichever is greater.'
In connection With subject property, Mr. Murdoch advised, that Anaheim
Hills, Inc. has concluded that this site would not be suitable for the location of
their ultimate equestrian facility. Further, he reported that there is a party
interested in leasing the Anaheim Hills Golf Course and adjacent City properties,
to operate same as a public golf course, which party ts also interested in the
eventual construction, at their expense, of the additional nine holes at such
time as it appears feasible.
In answer to Council questions, Mr. Hurdoch indica~ed that it would
be the desire of this interested party that any such lease of the :golf course
itself would include the five acres under discussion. However, he did not
feel this would preclude leasing said property to Anaheim Hills, Inc. at this
time for the initial five-year period, reco~nizing that the third nine holes
probably wou. ld not be necessary durin~ this ~time period. He noted that there
would be sufficient city-owned acreage adjacent to the golf course to provide
the proposed fire station, and the additional nine holes for the golf course,
but not enough for these two facilities, plus the equestrian center.
· Mr. John Millick, represmntingAnaheim Hills, lnG, indicated that
his firm would entertain a five-year m~ximum lease.or a lease with a termina-
tion clause which would allow them some initial protection of their capital
investment and sufficient time to make the move.
" Mr. Nurdoch, with Council concurrence,' indicated that the final
lease' agreement will be prepared with these'chansesand in an attempt to work
ouC the golf course lease with opti-,,m timing for each use.
DISCUSSION- I~]~IRTI T.maSR.-ANA~I~INHILLq~OLF'C~mSX FACILITIES:
In answer to Councilman Pebley's concern regarding the effect of
t~is proposed, lease on the City's. Original contract for the golf course
property, Mr. Nurdoch 'felt that there WOuld be no problems so long as the
obligation of the City to the leaseholder is protected. The revenue under
any such proposed lease would first be pledged toward the City's obligation
to the original leaseholder.
Extensive discussion of the possibilities and ramifications which
may ensue from such a lease was held,and Councilman Sneegas.pointed out thac
this interest does indicate that there is a potential growth of the golf
course and that.the question the Council must consider is whether or not they
wish to relinquish that potential to receive a set fee for a period as long
as 30 years. Further., there was some cbncern regarding the'maintenance and
operation of the course, i.e., in particular, that should the lessee not be
74'5~9
successful in this endeavor, that he ~ot ab4adoa m in a co~tCioa lees
~h~n it ~as ~hen originally leased. In response t~ ~hia, Hr, l~rdoch felt
it would certainly be incumbent on the City to incorporate such safeguards
in a lease agreement.
At the conclusion of Council discussion, it ~ the coacensus of
opinion that the City Hanaser should continue to aSSreeeively pursue the
possibility o£ a lona,-tem lease of the Anaheim Halls'Golf Course and chat
the lease for the adjacent five acres of property to Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
for an interim equestrian facility be dra~n up with the changes specified
by the City Hanager.
Councilman Seymour indicated that his previous request for a pro-
fessional appraisal of subject five acres, ~hich~s eatimted to cost $2,800
~ould no longer be Justified in vier of the fact that the ter~ of said lease
~ould be a maximum of five years, and requested that the. Ctty l4anager direct
the appraiser employed todisconkinue his efforts at this time. He indicated
that 107. of $12,000 per acre ~ould be an acceptable price, in his opinion.
No further action vas taken by the City Cotmcil.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-250 - I~OPOSED FCC LIHITATION ON CATV F~Iq~ISE FEE: On the
recommendation of the Assistant City Hanager, Councilman Seymour offered
Resolutton No. 74R-250 [or adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF Tt~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSING THE
I~OPOSAL OF THE FEDERAL COI~NICATIONS COI~I$SI(~ TO-IMPOSE LII~TATIONS
ON THE FEE I~HI~ HAY BE CHAR~D BY THE CITY F(H A CATV ~I~ AND THE
USES OF TI~ FUNDS DERIVED THEREI~O~L
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSOLVE:
C(I~CIL
C(I~CIL I~MBE/S:
COOl, IL l~RS:
Kay~ood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and .Thom
None
None
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 7/~R-250 duly passed and adopted.
C~VIC CENTER~O~ TASK F~CE RECO~.#~ATIO~IIEC~DI~FUND~GI~ETIIODS - GIVIO.
CEIFfER PROJECT:-. Counctl~nan Seymour, Chairman of the Civic Center Joint Task Force
presented the reco~endation of that Body regarding f/nam:iq of the Civic
Center Project, i.e., the use of Joint ps-ers Revenue Bondin~ together
the Redevelopment A~ency.
The City Attorney related that if the City Council and Redevelol~
ment Agency are desirous of en~loyins this financing ~e~hod, it is then
incu~bent upon the City to move fairly rapidly, the firmt step being to
contact bond counsel and financial consultants to ascar~tn their opinion
as to ho~ the issue should be placed before the electorate.
The City l~anager indicated that if Council, as has been mentioned
earlier, w~shes to place a bond issue on the N~r ballot, the decision
re~ardins same ~ust be made by approximatelyAu~uet 23, 197&. ~r~er, he
~lnCed ~C chaC the extent of i~o~emnC of the
mac be defined and established since, ~Ch. Joint P~ro fi~inj, ~u are
eee~Cially 8pe~in~ of a~devel~nC ~oJ~C, ,~iehpre~blY~ll
tn the ~bl~k area. ~e bd~el~C ~oelon~ll ~ Co define
~ rou~ pl~ in areas of interest ~d~ac ~ir ~t~ ~ligati~s
child be ~n ~hia Joint P~rs aetiviCy. ~ ~Ced ~t C~C C~ ~ieolon
~e in the paec e~eseed a desire ~C Co h~e
Ci~ ~11 itself ~ in~rCicular the ~totCi~ of pretty e~ctflcally
for City hll. ~ ~ia re,rd, ~. ~rd~h felt iC ~t~le Co c~cC
~ die,salon Jointly ~en the City ~il
in n aCc~c co ~cli~ nd a~ee on a c~c~C
Flute ~reccor My Ch~ use in Chair colla~raZl~o
fl~ial c~sulC~C.
~ssl~rk sessions sch~l~ for ~y, J~,
74~ 550
City Rail. Anaheim. C~lifornia.- COUNCIL I~r~ES - May 28. 1974. 1:30 P.M
RECESS - XX~_c~IVE SESSION: Councilman Thom moved to recess to Executive Session.
Council~n Seymour seconded the motion, lt0TIO~ CARRIED. (4:50 P.H.)
~: The Playor called the meeting to order, all COunci!menbeing present.
(5:15 P.N.)
APPO~.- GII~. p. FRY- P-I~.nEVE~ COl4~r-~SI_-o~: Councilvoman Kayvood
nominated Nr. Glenn P. Fry to fill the unexpired term of Gaylen Compton on
the C~-.-?_,nity Redevelopment Commission. Councilman Seymour seconded the
Nominations for said appointment were closed on motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. 140TION CARRIED.
The Hayor declared Glenn P. Fry appointed unanimously to fill the
unexpired term of Gaylen Compton on the Commnity Redevelopment Con~nission
(term ending June 30, 1975). ~
APPOINT- _S~_I~.YI~HITE - PA~_K~ & RR¢~ATION COI%~ISSI~T: Councilman Seymour
nominated.Mrs. Sally White Member-at-Large to fill the unexpired termof
Glenn P. Fry on the Parks & Recreation Commission; Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Nominations for said appointment were closed on motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom. HOTI0~I CARRIED.
The Nayor declared Mrs. Sally White appointed unanimously to fill
the unexpired term of Mr. Glenn P. Fry on the Parks & Recreation commission
(term ending June 30, 1974).
OIL~ COUlfI~ ~Ae$IT DISTRICT PRESEh~A?IC:i: Hr. ~b ~vis a~ounced that he was
not certain~ether or not the ~an8e County Transit District is pla~in8 ~o
give ~eir entire c~r~ensive presentation regardi~ the legislation on the
for~hc~i~ N~e~er ballot at the ~y 29~h mee~ins aC ~nta ~ City Hall,
~o ~ich ~he City Council and ~er of'C~rce have been invited. Since
it ts i~rt~ infomtion ~d iC is felt the City Council and ~ber of
C~erce shouldbe ~lly co8n[~nt, ~. ~v~s suggested that dependen~
u~n the ~unc of infomtion given only 29~h, ~he balance or entire pre-
senta~ion be scheduled for the City Council ~eting on Tuesday, June ~, 1974.
The Council indicated agreement with this proposal.
· l~{~~: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn to Tuesday, June 4, 1974, at
10:00 A.M., at the Nanagement Control Center, 114 South Claudina Street,
for the purpose of a Joint york session rich the Anaheim Redevelopment
Coemission. COUncilman Thom seconded the motion. NOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:25 P.M.
Deputy City ~lerk