1979/01/2379-85
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 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 ~NAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Jack L. White
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Robert Henninger
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PLANNING AIDE: Pam Lucado
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Frank M. Gray, United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION FOR A SPEEDY RECOVERY: A resolution wishing Henry G. "Dad"
Miller a speedy recovery from an illness was adopted by the City Council, to
be presented to "Dad" by Councilman Roth at a later date.
111: PRESENTATION - REPORT ON WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ON ANTI-INELATION INITIATIVES:
Mr. Alan Hughes, President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, reported on
the special briefing held at the White House which he attended, along with Larry
Sierk, at the invitation of President Carter. One hundred seventy-five were
invited to the special briefing, representing a cross-section of the business
community, with 11 to 15 from California. They met with Mr. Barry Bosworth,
Director of Price and Wage Stability, and Dr. Alfred Kahn, Assistant to the
President on Inflation. Mr. Bosworth first gave an overview from an economist's
standpoint of where the county was relative to inflation, followed by a question
and answer period, after which Vice President Mondale gave a brief presentation.
While the plan of the administration was known as the President's Plan, after
listening to Mr. Kahn, it was evident he was the author and the driving force
behind the volunteer plan that had been accepted by the administration.
Mr. Kahn indicated that in addressing the problem of inflation, there were three
basic approaches to it: (1) Do nothing and let the economy seek its own level
which, in his opinion, would result in a recession and possible depression. Thus
they abandoned that approach; (2) Adopt strict price and wage controls which Mr.
Kahn felt the present adminstration was not capable of administering and his-
torically when price and wage controls had been implemented, there were so many
inequities that plan failed miserably. Thus the administration was also advised
to abandon that approach; and (3) A voluntary program - the approach President
Carter recommended.
79-86
_Cit~ Hal.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Dr. Kahn presented what the administration expected of the business community,
basically revolving around the 7% increase in wages, and also a complicated
formula which would be applied to all price increases, representing a stringent
policy in relation to net proflts at the end of the year which, to his under-
standing, would be a 50% decrease ow~r [978. If business were able to follow
those guidelines, Dr. Kahn believed it would exert enough pressure on the
inflationary trend to control that escalation.
Mr. Hughes stated what was disturbing to him and Mr. Sierk as well, was that
while there were definite requirements made of the business community, organized
labor was completely left out of the program, and there had been very little
constraints and conditions placed upon them and their negotiations for increased
wages. It obviously had something to do with the Democratic administration.
Mr. Hughes stated in his opinion there were three main contributing factors
to inflationary problems: (1) the federal government, (2) the business community,
and (3) organized labor. He could not see an effective program that would
ignore or eliminate any one of those factors.
Councilman Roth stated that probably one of the most serious problems was relative
to the energy crisis, oil production and petroleum. He wanted to know if they
could gather any information, particularly regarding deregulation and permitting
the additional amount of necessary equipment in order to have a higher production
of gasoline.
Mr. Hughes explained the problem in Washington was trying to pin people down in
order to obtain answers. He maintained that they needed very strong leadership
in Washington in order to pull all the agencies of the government together. It
was so huge and massive that it presented a tremendous problem.
Mr. Hughes continued that he felt inflation was not caused by raising prices and
salaries, but the government working on a deficit figure and printing money which
had no backing, thus devaluing the dollar. It was important that there be physical
responsibility in Washington and at the local level. In his sphere of influence,
he was recommending that they fo]iow the guidelines set forth, and he endorsed
the program. He also explained for Councilman Overholt that relative to any
follow-up from Mr. Kahn's off~ce, both he and Mr. Sierk had received letters
indicating more information would be available and would be sent to them, also
offering names of individuals who would be available as speakers.
Councilman Kott asked basically what Mr. Hughes, as a businessman, was supposed to
do.
Mr. Hughes answered that they were stq~pos~ to limit any wage increases to 7%.
That was the only clear cut d~rective. Relative to increasing prices, it was
a complicated formula dependent upon the price structure at a certain given
date and asking for no more than a 1~% price increase.
Mayor Seymour then expressed his appreciation to Mr. Hughes for taking the time
to speak to the City Council to give such a report. He expressed that in the
future it might be appropriate for the Chamber to address the Council on an
annual basis as to what was going on in the world of business in Anaheim, as well
as the State and the Nation.
79-87
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held September 19 and September 26, 1978 and the adjourned regular
meeting of October 18, 1978, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
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
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $905,381.89, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Kott offered
Resolution Nos. 79R-43 through 79R-47, both inclusive, for adoption as recommend-
ed by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 30,
1978 FOR THE HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-31200.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 4,
1979 FOR THE HIDDEN CANYON PUMPING STATION, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-32420.
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-45: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND VIA BURTON STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 13-795-6325-5040. (Steiny and Company, $35,300)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-46: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
BALL ROAD AND DALE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-795-6325-5030.
(Smith Electric Supply, $52,885)
159: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DIRECTING THE FILING AND POSTING OF PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM WAGES
PERTAINING TO PUBLIC WORKS.
79-88
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIl, MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
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. 79R-43 through 79R-47, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
150/174: ALLOCATION FROM CDBC CONTINGENCY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PEARSON PARK POOL:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, allocation
of $50,000 from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Contingency/Local
Option Activity Account toward the construction of the new Pearson Park Pool was
approved, as recommended in memorandum dated January 16, 1979 from the Executive
Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED.
131: STATE HIGHWAY DISTRICT FOR ORANGE COUNTY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 79R-48 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated January 17,
1979 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth, requesting the State Legislature to
create a new State Highway Distr~ct for Orange County. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REQUESTING THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A NEW STATE HIGHWAY DISTRICT FOR
ORANGE COUNTY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overho]t, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R--48 duly passed and adopted.
123: CONSULTING SERVICES ~'OR STREET LIGHTING AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS: Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-49 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated January 12, 1979 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT WITH BERRYMAN &
STEPHENSON, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT. (area bounded generally by Janss Street, East Street, Broadway and
Cypress Street)
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. 79R-49 duly passed and adopted.
79-89
City HaLll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
101: ASI BOARD OF DIRECTORS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, the election of Ben P. Pruett to the Anaheim Stadium, Inc. Board
of Directors was ratified, as recommended in letter of January 19, 1979 from Leonard
Smith, President. MOTION CARRIED.
153: PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND ANNUAL MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS - 1979-80: (Continued from
,January 9 and January 16, 1979) Human Resources Director, Gary McRae stated
that after last week's Council meeting, he investigated the possibility of
splitting the annual physicals between Dr. Ninburg (Anaheim Medical Clinic)
and Dr. Whittier (Golden West) and both agreed that they would conduct those
medicals at the prices quoted in their original submissions. He also recom-
mended that Golden West provide the pre-employment, DMV and other mandated
physicals that were necessary from time to time. Dr. Ninburg expressed in a
letter that he would be interested in performing some of those examinations,
but Mr. McRae recommended that all those medical examinations be given to one
facility.
Councilman Kott stated that he offered the motion the previous week but did not
recall including the selection of an arbitrary organization to perform pre-
employment physicals, and he wanted to know the basis for the selection of one or
the other.
Mr. McRae answered that his proposal was based upon the satisfactory performance
of the Golden West Clinic during the period of time they had been performing
those examinations and the City's ability to establish a relationship with them
in terms of discussing standards and performance during the time of their service.
They had never used Anaheim Medical Clinic, but did use Dr. Ninburg five or six
years prior and his performance was satisfactory.
Councilman Kott then asked why he did not include a choice of the two facilities.
Mr. McRae stated he did not know why there was a basis for a choice, but that
economy and efficiency required that the kind of treatment involved be performed
at a single facility. He believed it to be more efficient to deal with one
facility and on the basis of the recent service provided by Golden West, he
recommended that they continue to perform pre-employment physical examinations.
Under any circumstances, his recommendation would be that they have just one
primary clinic to perform pre-employment examinations.
Councilman Kott reiterated that it was not the intent of his motion that an
arbitrary decision be made relative to who would perform pre-employment physicals.
He did not believe it to be less efficient to work with several people than with
one.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the fact that staff was recommending
a more efficient and economical way to proceed, and she did not want to prevent them
from doing so by accepting a less economical route and subsequently complaints to
staff that they were not saving money.
79-90
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated the Ninburg estimate was lower than the other clinic
and all he was recommending was that the examinations be given to both.
Mayor Seymour stated as he understood, Councilman Kott was not suggesting that
the potential employee or the applicant for a position with the City make the
determination, but that the City make the determination which medical firm
was going to offer the physical; Councilman Kott confirmed the Mayor's under-
standing.
The Mayor asked Mr. McRae if that procedure would create an additional burden
or cost if, for instance, one month pre-employments would be performed by
Golden West and the next by Anaheim Medical.
Mr. McRae answered he believed that it would since there was very close coordin-
ation between Personnel, Risk Management and the providing physician where
those three entities dealt on an almost individual basis with the results of the
examinations. A distribution amongst more than one carrier would lead to some
confusion and disruption of the process. It was an ongoing daily process which
would mean that every other month at the least, they would have to print a new
set of directions on how to contact the doctors. He maintained that it was
not in the best interest of the City.
Mayor Seymour asked if the cost for pre-employment physicals in the bid submitted
was less expensive with Dr. Ninburg, than that proposed by Golden West.
Mr. McRae explained that they did not break down the bids to that extent.
Mayor Seymour then asked if the cost for pre-employment physicals was the same
as annual physicals.
Mr. McRae answered "no" and also there was several different kinds of pre-employment
physicals. He did not check with Anaheim Medical Clinic as to their cost of
pre-employment physicals, as compared to that of Golden West, but determined
whether or not either facility would ~:hange their proposal if they both received
a part of the business. Both said "no" and on the basis of the proposals, he
recommended continuing with Golden West because of the relationship already
established.
The Mayor thereupon concluded that tht~ matter of annual physicals had been
resolved the previous week. He then apologized to Councilman Kott on behalf
of Mr. McRae because he understood Councilman Kott's motion to be pre-employment
physicals with one clinic. Thus, if Mr. McRae misunderstood, he did as well.
He then asked Mr. McRae if, in his discussions the past week, he compared the
cost for a pre-employment physical to an annual physical.
Mr. McRae confirmed that he had not dr>ne so and also reiterated there was a
substantial difference between the cost of the two examinations. He further
clarified that they did not compare the cost of pre-employment physicals, i.e.,
Golden West vs. Anaheim Medical.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that Golden West and Anaheim Medical Clinic
be approved to provide annual physicals and that a decision be continued for
one week on pre-employment physicals to determine the low bid. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
79-91
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
139: GANN GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITATION INITIATIVE: Mr. Alan Hughes, President
of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce stated that as the Council was aware, the
Chamber Board of Directors endorsed Spirit of 13 Gann Initiative. His under-
standing of what they were addressing at the present time was a City report
dated January 3, 1979 outlining the pros and cons of an impact of the Initiative
on city government. The Chamber formed an ad hoc committee to look at the
report on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. The Chamber's report had been
submitted to the Council, the second two pages of which were broken down by
each point (see position paper regarding Gann Initiative - "Spirit of 13" -
January 18, 1979). He then referred to the first page of the report which
indicated that the Board of Directors on January 18 approved the position
paper regarding the Gann Initiative. Based upon information they had received,
it was their opinion that was identified as negative impacts were, in fact,
positive impacts which would coincide with the mandate of the voters in Proposition
13. He thereupon read an excerpt from the report concluding that, "therefore,
the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce suggests to the City Council to continue their
analysis of the Gann Initiative in more detail."
Councilman Roth stated that the Mayor had asked the Chamber and his Council
colleagues if they endorsed the concept. Thus it would do nothing more than
advise Anaheim citizens that they were supportive of the "Spirit of 13". The
question therefore was whether the Chamber was giving that support and recommending
that the Council endorse the Initiative or hold it in abeyance for further study.
Mr. Hughes explained that the Chamber was saying the report they were asked to
review was not completely accurate from their point of view and if the Council
was going to make a decision based upon that report, they should take another
look at it. The Chamber was already on record as saying that they recommended
the "Spirit of 13"--Gann Initiative and recommended the Council's adoption of
that Initiative.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Council go on public record as
supporting the Gann Initiative--"Spirit of 13" Spending Limitation and implemen-
tation of same. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in reading through
all of the reports submitted, there were many questions that were totally
unanswered that could be of critical consequences to the City and the residents.
She could not find how it would affect the utilities and it was necessary to
know that impact. They talked about paying off the Golf Course land in Anaheim
Hills and improving the Golf Course itself in order to foster more play at that
course. She wanted to know where the money would come from to do so. They
wanted to build a new library in the Canyon, and she was concerned as to how
that would be affected. There was also the question of pending law suits
against the City, and the possibility of escalating insurance rates if problems
arose relative to the Stadium, Convention Center, reservoirs, etc. They talked
about using the Federal CPI which was lower than the California CPI. Elections
were constantly required, and she wanted to know who would pay for those special
elections and all the attendant costs, and if there were certain times when
elections could be held. She reiterated she was concerned over where money would
come from, would they have to borrow it and then pay it back at a very high
interest rate. She was further concerned about putting something into
79-92
~.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
legislation that would not allow any flexibility whatsoever or a way to
react to the needs of the local community. A primary consideration was the
fact that they would be handing over to the State all local control and there
would be no way left for a local entity to be responsible for its own future.
The same would apply to all the special districts, school districts, and every
city, whether they liked it or not or whether it passed in that city or not.
There had to be much greater clarity in the Initiative itself. Those were
just some of the questions and, as well, Anaheim had its own Charter Amendment
which was passed last April on tax limitation which she maintained did every-
thing as far as controlling the amount of spending in the City with the necessary
flexibility built in so that they could still have local control. She emphasized
she did not want to give away that local control.
Councilman Overholt stated [~e was prepared to offer a substitute motion unless
the btayor wished to include that Staff be instructed to carry on an ongoing
analysis, consistent with the recommendations of the Board of Directors of the
Chamber, of the impact of the Gann Initiative.
The Mayor stated as he understood, Councilman Overholt wanted to include that
the City Council would go on record in support of the "Spirit of 13" Initiative
and implementation thereof and, in addition, that ongoing studies be conducted
by City management and staff. Councilman Overholt confirmed that was correct.
The Mayor stated he would include that in his motion; Councilman Roth accepted
the addition in his second.
Councilman Overholt continued that as Councilwoman Kaywood stated the City Staff
analysis raised many questions relative to what impact the Gann Initiative might
have, if carried. They also had the benefit of an excellent analysis by Mr. Don
Hodgman of O'Melveny and Myers which was done for a Los Angeles agency and the
bottom line was that there was uncertainty as to what the impact would be. Thus,
to brand it as bad legislation which was what some people were doing because
there were uncertainties, was unfair at this time. First, support of it
would encourage people to s~gn the petitions so that the people would have an
opportunity to vote on it, and set:()n(l~v, by an ongoing study of the impact on
the City, by the time the matter would be brought before the voters of the State,
people would be wel~informed on the Gann initiative, and thus they would be able
to make an educated decision.
He did not think that any proposed initiative would answer all questions at this
stage. He for one, politically, had st~pported the limitation on government
spending because he was a member of a party that supported such limitation and
he had not changed his positiot~. He felt that government spending limitation
was the way to go at the high cost of government and the Gann Initiative had
been drafted by a group with great expertise. He was therefore 100% in
support of the position of the motion and felt there would be an ongoing study
to answer the questions that would be raised from time to time.
Councilman Kott stated that ongoing ~tudies would not address the issue and they
were meaningless and costly. He considered the analysis not to be an analysis
at all, but rather an editorial. He stated that the Gann Initiative basically
79-93
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
was saying that government should not spend more than it took in and a lid
should be placed on spending. It was a simple situation and did not require
much study. He maintained that the motion did not address the problem.
Mayor Seymour stated that in 1978 he suggested, and Councilman Roth as a
member of VOTE at the same time was considering, a City Charter amendment
limiting property tax. The citizens of Anaheim voted in favor of the Charter
amendment by an overwhelming majority of four to one or 80%. There was no
doubt in his mind with that vote and the subsequent vote in favor of the Jarvis-
Gann, Proposition 13, by 70% of the voters Statewide, that the citizens of
Anaheim wanted to see some fiscal responsibility displayed, not only by local
government, but also at all levels. The Spirit of 13, if passed, was attempting
to go a step further and do the same thing that 80% of the citizens who voted
in Anaheim did by voting in favor of the Charter Amendment. They limited the
amount of local City property tax growth to a CPI and a percentage increase in
population. The "Spirit of 13" was proposing the same identical formula. He
explained that the property taxes in Anaheim represented something less than
2% of the total budget amount. Therefore, he did not think it a brash state-
ment to make that it was not inconceivable to him that since Anaheim was so
broadly based economically that the City could, if the leadership wanted to,
provide adequate City services at the level it was now maintaining with no
property tax. Total property taxes presently collected were approximately
$4 to 5 million and the City's total budget was over $213 million. Thus, he
considered it a possibility and he for one wanted to work towards that type
of reality some time in the future. Ail the questions would be raised as to,
"What would happen if," would always he raised, just as with Proposition 13,
and never be resolved to the satisfaction of some.
The Mayor then pointed out the significant increase in the budget for 1978-79
over that of 1977-78 and concluded if the citizens of Anaheim with that know-
ledge could say that they entrusted to their elected officials the flexibility
necessary to turn the revenue controls, then he believed they were sadly misled.
He maintained they needed some self-restraint as elected officials and by
asking the people to vote that self-restraint, they would be doing themselves and
the Council a favor. He was of the opinion they could live within those
constraints and relative to capita] improvements, if the initiative passed,
they could be financed as traditionally in the past, through a local bond
election. Further, in the event the "Spirit of 13" was not successful in
qualifying for the ballot, the City Council at that time, could consider the
appointment of a Blue Ribbon Committee to design a similar City Charter Amendment
on which the citizens of Anaheim would have the opportunity to vote just as
they voted on the property tax limitation in 1978. The amendment to the motion
was, therefore, consistent because further analysis needed to be done.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated of concern to her was that when the Mayor talked
about an increase in the budget, he was including utilities.
Mayor Seymour stated that he extracted his numbers directly out of the published
budget. He then explained what the budget figures reflected without including
the cost of power, federal grants, and redevelopment bonds which, in the final
analysis, still showed a 45% increase, which he considered obscene.
79-94
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would want to hear the figures from the Finance
Department and she also pointed out that there was to be a change in accounting
techniques which would generate greater savings. However, under the Gann
Initiative that change would not likely be permissible. If they were not per-
mitted to do something to give greater economy, clarity and efficiency, they
would be tying their hands. Relative to the utility, if they had to sell it
because of the effects of the Gann Initiative, there was only the Edison Company
to sell it to and under those circumstances, the offer would be less than
favorable.
The Mayor stated he did not think Councilwoman Kaywood was accurate in her
analysis of the City's utility becaus~ his interpretation of the Initiative,
as it applied to the utility, was that it was a user service, and therefore
they could charge the use cost.
A further brief discussion followed between Mayor Seymour and Councilwoman
Kaywood revolving around the City's utility and the possible impact of the
Initiative, at the conclusion of which the Mayor stated he was of the opinion
that Councilwoman Kaywood was ph£1osophically opposed to putting the "handcuffs"
on local government and carrying on the functions of the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that if there were potholes in the street and
people wanted them fixed, she wanted the City to be able to fix them. She
emphasized that as the Mayor would recall, she seconded the motion for a
limitation on property tax that was woted on favorably by 80% of the voters.
There was a difference between being efficient and strangling the City.
Councilman Overholt stated that since they were now getting far afield from
the original issue, he wanted to hear from the City Manager in response to
the allegations by the Mayor relative to a 50% increase in the budget for
fiscal year '78-79 over the previous year.
City Manager Tal]ey stated that the 50~7% increase was nearly all attributable
to capital improvement projects which were either approved by the voters or
included in City Council policy decisions. In Redevelopment there was $8.6 million
in the current budget, whereas there was nothing the prior year; the Civic Center,
$6.6 million, nothing the prior year; and utilities, electric revenue bonds,
there was an additional $40.5 million, $1.8 million to $42.3 million; water
utility, $2.25 million; electric utility, $3.9 million. That totaled approxi-
mately $62 million of the $72 million increase. The Mayor had pointed out,
the areas where the remainder could be found and federal funds were up in some
areas. As part of the research, they looked at the General Fund and using
the Gann Initiative as the guide, found that they would be allowed to increase
the budget approximately ]0.4%. If that included capital from the recreation
function, the budget would be up 8.8% or 1~% less than it could be. If they
excluded capital, the budget would be up 4.9% for the General Fund or less
than one-half of what Gann would provide. Both statements therefore were
correct, the budget was up 50% mostly because of capital projects. The problem wa~
how that would be interpreted if the Cann Initiative were enforced. They did
not have a position either way, but were merely pointing out if they wanted to
issue $40 or 50 million worth of ~ti]ity bonds or redevelopment bonds under the
Gann Initiative, there would have to be some legal interpretation to do so. He
79-95
City ttall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 237 1979, 1:30 P.M.
repeated that the budget was up 50%, but nearly all was capital voted by the
people or approved by the Council the previous year, not operating costs
but capital. He also explained for Councilman Kott that in the operating
budget, normally 80 to 85% went for salaries or directly related items.
Councilman Kott asked the Mayor how he envisioned the ongoing reports to be
issued.
The Mayor stated if the Gann Initiative qualified for the ballot by March 19,
1979, the voters would have an opportunity to decide the question. If for
some reason it should fail to qualify, then his intent would be that they
structure a committee to draft a proposal for consideration that would amend
the City Charter to impose a similar limitation on spending within the City.
They would have to await the March 9, 1979 date and nothing could be done in
the interim.
Councilman Overholt stated he would go beyond the Mayor's interpretation of
the need for ongoing awareness. If the issue did get on the ballot, they still
had to continually keep themselves informed of the current interpretation of the
Initiative.
The Mayor stated the intent was to study the matter subsequent to March 19 as
to how it would further impact the City or to take under consideration placing
it on the City ballot to amend the City Charter.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows: That the
Council was in support of the Gann Initiative and implementation thereof and
staff instructed to carry on an ongoing study of questions that would be raised
from time to time. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she abstained because there were too many unanswered
questions regarding the issue, and she again emphasized that she seconded the
motion to put the property tax limitation for the City on the ballot in 1978.
RECESS: By genera] consent the Council_ recessed for 10 minutes. (3:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:45 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. '77-78-64 AND EIR NO. 216: Application by
Mable J. Bauer and United California Bank for a change in zone from County A-1
(General Agricultural) to PC (Planned Community) on 375 acres located southeast
and southwest of Riverside Freeway and Weir Canyon Road (Bauer Ranch).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-276 certified
Environmental Impact Report No. 216 and granted Reclassification No. 77-78-64
subject to the following conditions:
1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to the completion
of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
79-96
Ci..ty ttal. l? Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. ~at ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as each ~arcel
is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel; provided, how-
ever, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing parcels of record
and any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council for a lot split.
3. That the number of dwelling units per acre proposed (in connection with
tract maps, parcel maps, or other development plans) for each land use area
in the Bauer Ranch Planned Community may be equal to, but shall not exceed,
the average density as approved in the Bauer Ranch General Plan of Development
unless such proposal to transfer dwelling units between or within land use
areas is submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. Plans for any
proposed transfer of dwelling units shall identify the land use areas affected
and shall specify both the approved and the proposed dwelling unit counts in
all affected land use areas. 2~e total dwelling unit count in the Bauer Ranch
Planned Community shall not exceed 900.
4. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance to establish zoning on each
specific parcel or parcels within the Planned Community, and in accordance
with the provisions of the "PC" Planned Community Zone, there shall be submitted
to the City Planning Commission for review and approval specific plans of
development for the area(s) ~nvolved. Final specific plans shall include, but
not be limited to, the following:
a. Topographic map.
b. Site plans and elevations showing the placement of the buildings and
structures; the front, side and rear ~tlevations; and the exterior building
materials including roofing.
c. Lot dimensions and pad size of all lots sufficient to indicate the
relationship of the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut-and-fill or
earthwork involved.
d. Landscaping plans indicating the extent and type of proposed land-
scaping and including any existing reiteration.
e. Vehicle circulation and parkLng plan indicating the nature and
extent of public and private streets, public alleys, or public accessways
for vehicular circulation, off-street parking and vehicle storage.
f. Equestrian and hiking trails plan showing the placement and improve-
ments of the trails easements.
g. Fence and/or wall plans indi,~'ating the type of fencing along any
l~t line of a site abutting a street, river, creek, open storm drain, lake,
railroad, or other work.~.
h. Signing plans indicating the proposed signing program and including,
but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs; and specifying
the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of such signs.
79-97
C~ty Ha/l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
5. That dedication of all public streets including arterial highways shall be
made to the City of Anaheim in accordance with the submitted Circulation Element
of the Bauer Ranch General Plan of Development and with the adopted Circulation
Element of the Anaheim General Plan.
6. That dedication of vehicular access rights except at approved access points
to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road shall be made to the City of
Anaheim prior to the approval of final specific development plans for each
parcel. Such plans incu]de, but are not limited to tract maps, parcel maps,
and building permit plans.
7. That dedication of Equestrian and Hiking Trails Easements shall be made
in accordance with the adopted Equestrian and Hiking Trails Element of the
Anaheim General Plan; and that said trails shall be improved in accordance with
plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, prior to
the approval of final specific development plans for each parcel.
8. That in accordance with Council Policy No. 214 pertaining to Traffic
Signal Assessments, traffic signal fees shall be paid prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
9. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
10. That prior to any water connections in the Bauer Ranch Planned Community,
the devleopers of said planned community (Kaufman and Broad, Inc. or their
successors, assigns, or transferees) shall submit to the Director of Public
Utilities for his review and approval, a proposed plan for the acreage payment
of water main extension fees. Said plan shall consider all land within the
Bauer Ranch Planned Community including open space.
ll. 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 all requirements of Fire Zone 4 (otherwise identified as Fire Admin-
istrative Order No. 76-01 on file in the office of the Fire Chief) shall be
met. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, chimney-spark arrestors,
protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces located within
200 feet of adjacent brusbland.
13. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be required by the
Fire Chief.
14. That no public or priw~te street grades shall exceed ten percent (10%)
except by prior approval of the Fire Department and the Engineering Division.
15. That in accordance with the policies of the Fire Department, native slopes
(as discussed in Chapter 17.06 "Grading, Excavations and Fills in Hillside
Areas" of the Anaheim Municipal Code) located adjacent to newly constructed
79-98
_C_ity Hall., Anaheim, California -COUNCII, MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
homes shall be hydroseeded with a iow fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes
shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish 100 feet separation
of flammable vegetation from any structure.
16. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
17. 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 ]5th 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
therefore (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 f~na] building inspections or occupancy permits. Drain-
age district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers
of said property upon their request. The ultimate point of disposal shall be ~
the Santa Ana River and any deficient drainage facilities under Santa Ana
Canyon Road or the Riverside Freeway shall be upgraded by the developer as
required to handle the ultimate flow.
18. 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 all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's standards for private streets.
20. That prior to approval of a final tract map or to the issuance of building
permits, covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office and, further, that the approved covenants,
conditions and restrictions shall include provision for the permanent maintenance
of any common open space areas.
21. That prior to the introduction of the first ordinance to establish zoning
on any parcel(s) within the Bauer Ranch Planned Community, a specific Public
Facilities plan, including such implementation programs as may be approved by
the City Council, shall be provided by the developer(s) of the entire Planned
Community (Kaufman and Broad, Inc. or their successors, assigns, or transferees).
The specific plan shall include, but not be limited to, a discussion and
evaluation of the following:
79-99
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
a. Identification of all the publi~: facilities proposed for the area
including, but not being limited to, public streets, landscaped medians and
parkways; public parks and open spaces; police and fire facilities; libraries;
equestrian and hiking trails; bicycle lanes; electric utilities such as
substations, transmission lines, and street lighting; and water utilities such
as transmission mains and reservoirs.
b. Ultimate development capacities of the public facilities for the area.
c. Land proposed to be dedicated to the City of Anaheim for public
facility purposes.
d. Cost to the City of Anaheim for all public facilities.
e. Alignment, phasing and bonding for all right-of-way for all arterial
highways including equestrian and hiking trails and bicycle lanes; storm drains;
utility easements and other public facilities.
f. Specific means of financing the installation, construction and
maintenance of all public facilities; such means may include, but are not limited
to, reimbursement districts, assessment districts, in lieu fees, establishment
of a master homeowners association, etc., provided that the specific means for
each public facility shall be approved by the City of Anaheim.
22. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
the Bauer Ranch General Plan of Development on file with the City of Anaheim
and marked Exhibit No. 1; provided, however, that the total dwelling unit count
shall not exceed 900 although transfer of units between land use areas may be
approved by the Planning Commission following submittal of precise plans for
such transfer, as discussed in the preceding Condition 3.
23. No ordinance reclassifying any portion of the property designated on the
Zoning Element of the General Plan of Development (Revision No. 1) as Areas lB,
3D and the portion of Area 81 lying between Areas lB and 3D shall be introduced
until such time as a feasibility study for commercial developmen~ has been
completed by the City Planning Department and the amount and extent of any
additional site for commercial development within said areas has been determined
and approved by the City Council. In the event any portion of said commercial
site falls within the above specified area or areas, the developer shall submit
an amendment to the General Plan of Development and any other applications
necessary to reclassify the designated site for commercial development
consistent with the approved feasibility study.
24. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 21, 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.
25. That Condition Nos. 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 22, above mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
79-100
~]ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bob Henninger, Planning Aide, explained that the proposed action involved
a request by the petitioner for pre-annexation zoning for the 375 acre Bauer
Ranch property, specifically a zone change from County A-1 zone to the City
of Anaheim PC or Planned Community Zone. PC zoning required the petitioner
to submit a General Plan of Development including a land use element, a zone
element and several other elements such as circulation and public utilities.
The PC zone was an intermediate step toward the issuance of a building permit
and would require approval of specific plans at a later date. Additionally,
because of the nature of the petitioners' proposal, staff prepared the following
Conditions (number 21 of 24) which would require further City Council review
before the zoning could be finalized on any portion of the subject property:
"that prior to the £ntroduction of the first ordinance to establish zoning on
any parcel within the Bauer Ranch Planned Community, a specific public facilities
plan, including such implementation programs as may be approved by the City
Council, shall be provided by the developer of the entire Planned Community.
The specific plan shall include, but not be limited to a discussion and
evaluation of the following:" Item A through F of Condition No. 21 (see
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC78-276) outlining those items.
Mr. Henninger continued that the petitioner had submitted the required General
Plan of Development, accompanying draft EIR, and fiscal impact analysis (on
file in the City Clerk's office), see "Bauer Ranch, General Plan of Development,
Draft Environmental Impact Report dated April 1978 and addendum to draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 216 dated October 1978 prepared by Ultra Systems,
Inc. and the Bauer Ranch physical impact analysis (revised per Proposition 13
modification, second revision, November, 1978, on file in the City Clerk's office)
Mr. Henninger then narrated a slide presentation prepared by staff which showed
the general location of the Bauer Ranch depicting its topography. In
concuding the presentation, be showed a slide which was a copy of the submitted
land use element from the petitionez'sGeneral Plan of Development, taring the
generalized locations shown of the General Plan, and through a process which
examined the site in greater detail than possible during a General Plan Study,
allocating the planned uses to the site, giving specific consideration to
engineering and topographic factors. He explained the major difference between
the proposal and the General Plan was the shift to commercial uses to the islands
between the freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road and the shift of the higher density
residential areas to the east of the property. The shift of residential densities
was, in part, the result of concerns expressed at the first public meeting
before the Planning Commission.
The last slide showed the proposed zoning element which implemented the land
use element. He pointed out that it was an amended version of the one originally
proposed since the original proposal was for 1,350 units while the present
proposal was for 900 units. The amended proposal as approved by the Planning
Commission was in conformance with the Canyon area General Plan.
Mr. Henninger stated at their December 4, 1978 meeting, the Planning Commission,
in addition to granting Reclassification No. 77-78-64, by separate motion,directed
the Planning staff to study the feasibility of additional commercial areas on or
in the general vicinity of the Bauer Ranch because of the concern over the
possible fiscal impacts to the City.
79-101
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Bruce Tripp, representing Kaufman and Broad Homes, Inc. of Irvine stated
they had attempted at least from a land use and zoning aspect to interpret
to the best of their ability what they thought was the intent and the overall
use of the General Plan. In consultation with their land planners, engineers,
etc., they tried to demonstrate that in their General Plan development they
tried to utilize the flatter, more topographically desirable areas for the
higher density areas, they moved the commercial to the islands and tried to
preserve hills and canyons as best they could, the majority of the very high
large hilltops were left as open spaces, untouched, ungraded and natural and
the two major canyons on the site were left untouched.
The other area discussed before the Planning Commission was relative to the
economic impact which was presented in the Fiscal Impact Analysis. They
started the project long before Proposition 13 and after it passed, they
realized some of the City's constraints and numerous problems which evolved,
and they attempted to work with the City and staff to resolve some of those
problems. They prepared the analysis based on the proposal before the Council,
the two islands of commercial and 900 units. The report as prepared by Ashley
Economic Services showed a surplus to the City of some $123,000 plus or minus.
An important aspect relative to the economics was the concept they proposed
after the passage of Proposition 13 and after consulting with staff to some
degree. Regarding the cost to the City of capital expenditures in extending
existing facilities, services etc., out to the canyon to the Bauer Ranch, they
would front all of the capital expenditures required for the Ranch and/or
the Canyon area. By so doing, there would be virtually no cost, if any, to the
City initially and any costs that were not attributable to the Bauer Ranch
would be reimbursed back to Bauer by future developers.
In concluding, he stated that in comparing the Ashley Fiscal Impact Analysis
with that of staff, they were similar considering that the developer would
front all capital investment costs. He thereupon requested that the Council
approve the development as proposed to PC zoning and also certify the EIR. The
Consultants were present to discuss any questions that might arise.
Councilman Roth noted that the Planning Commission approval included the expansion
of commercial over that originally planned to approximately 21 acres. He wanted
to know, if the developments were approved, did the petitioner have an alternate
plan to increase commercial use.
Mr. Tripp explained when the Planning Commission requested that of him at their
hearing, it was so unexpected that he did not have an appropriate answer except
to say that they would investigate it. They had always looked at and analyzed
the Bauer Ranch from a residential viewpoint because they were primarily resi-
dential developers. However, they started to look at the situation and felt
there was some viability for more commercial in the area. They had no official
study or firm contacts, nor any extremely detailed land plans. Most activity
had taken place in the last couple of weeks, but it was verbal and exploratory.
They did determine however that more commercial could be feasible in that
immediate area.
79-102
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth then asked the City Attorney if the PC zoning was approved on
the total piece of property and the Council at a later time felt there should
be some additional commercial use, could they then so indicate that in the
future.
City Attorney Hopkins deferred to Deputy City Attorney Jack White who had been
working on the subject matter.
Mr. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, stated at the present time with the con-
ditions as imposed by the Planning Commission, the developer could proceed and
develop the property as prescribed. However, it would be possible for the Council
to add additional conditions, one of which could be, prior to the introduction
of any ordinance actually rezoning the property for residential development,
that commercial studies be done in the area and, based upon those studies, the
developer could stipulate to a rezon~ng to a commercial zone, rather than to
a residential zone as in the current proposal.
Councilman Kott stated that Mr. Tripp indicated there would be no cost to the
City initially which led him to believe there would ultimately be such a cost.
Mr. Tripp stated there would obviously be year-to-year ongoing operative costs
but those costs would come back to the City in many ways.
Councilman Kott then asked where low-income housing would be located under their
plan.
Mr. Tripp answered that they had not looked at the total development at this
point relative to low-cost housing. They were presently in very preliminary
stages and until they could get into a more concrete study and finalize the
land use elements, etc., it was very difficult to start stipulating areas
for low-cost housing, if it was feasible at all.
Councilman Kott questioned Mr. Henninger relative to the claim made that the
actual economic report and staff figures were similar. As he recalled, the
economic impact reports were quite divergent.
Mr. Henninger deferred to Pam Lucado, Planning Aide, who stated the Ashley Report
was based upon certain conditions and also conditions of reimbursement yet to
be adopted by the City Council. Staff prepared two Fiscal Impact Analyses
using an existing City Policy. There was a variation on one which was an
overplay of the "fair share" approach as described in the Ashley approach
outlined in the summary as Item 1 on the staff Fiscal Impact Report where
they projected there would be a f~scal deficit ranging from $3.9 to 10.8
million over an 11 year period in 1978 dollars. She then referred to Page 2p
of the staff report outlining the types of capital expenditures involved
except for street costs. Bauer ~nnch was willing to contribute their fair
share of those costs, or $3.1 million, leaving a balance of $4.4 million to be
picked up by a reimbursement district, the general fund, etc., and sources
yet to be determined.
79-103
_City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Relative to street costs, they received a memorandum from the City Engineer
defining the types and ranges of street capital costs anticipated to occur
with the Bauer Ranch development. It was determined in the Ashley EIR that
no cost would be incurred to the City and that the developer would pay for
all those costs. However, that written comment was only contained in the
yet to be adopted Fiscal Impact Report and it was not a condition of the
development plan. Therefore, staff pursued what the range of costs might be,
and there was a variety of ways in which the City could finance arterial
street construction. That was the reason for the range which could be anywhere
from $6 million to $]8.9 million.
She continued that the analysis showed that they would run an approximate
$180,000 deficit per year for operations and maintenance only. From the
reports that they had done, the City would incur a maintenance and operations
cost to service the Bauer Ranch. Even if capital expenditures were incurred,
those could be minimized with certain mitigation measures and those were yet
to be determined when looking into reimbursement districts and surcharges
since up to this point they had not looked at all the avenues.
The Mayor asked if there was anyone who wished to speak either in favor or
in opposition.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 1311,a Paz, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement
Association, stated she served on the Hill and Canyon Task Force which at the
time had 55 meetings. When they finally made their determination, they based
it on a fiscal impact model and having several choices, they selected plan
2B which was a modified growth plan showing a cost to the City of $57.43 million.
They also did the study with commercial development which showed a cost to the
City of $82.2 million. She was concerned over the fact that all who served on
the Task Force were strongly influenced in their decision by cost factors.
They did not want to go with a restrictive growth which was $18.28 million or
the other alternatives which were low density of $50.47 million or expanded
]ow density of $57.9 million and thus they compromised in trying to come up
with zoning they could live with comfortably. She wanted staff to explain
the discrepancies in the figures.
Relative to the EIR, she believed it to be inadequate. It mentioned the adverse
impact on air, water, drainage, habitat, circulation and public service, but
the mitigation measures were not adequate. She attended the LAFCO hearing on
January 10, 1979 and presented them with signatures of 2,300 residents throughout
the entire City of Anaheim who were opposed to the project based on the fact
that it was going to cost the taxpayers of Anaheim money. There were many areas
of Anaheim with unpaved alleys, potholes and very poor drainage. She thereupon
read an excerpt from minutes presented to LAFCO relative to Santa Ana Canyon
Annexation No. 7 wherein it was indicated that the City would have to provide
a complete line of municipal services upon annexation and ultimate development
of the site which services were elaborated upon in detail. The minutes
also stated, "that the applicant reports it will share a majority of the cost
for needed capital improvements in connection with the proposed development of
the site. Service provisions will be financed through the City's general tax
levied, normal user charges and assessments districts where appropriate."
79-104
City Hall~_Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mrs. Dinndorf emphasized that she could not see where the project
would not have a financial impact on taxpayers of the City of Anaheim and she
wanted to see the request denied.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed, Secretary of HACMAC, stated they reviewed the
Bauer Ranch on two or three occasions and reports were submitted to the
Planning Commission and delivered to the Council today. She concurred with
Mrs. Dinndorf on the Fiscal Impact and that was the bottom line of the
feeling throughout the hearing and the review of the Hill and Canyon Task Force
performed on the Bauer Ranch. They were very concerned about the cost and
the Fiscal Impact and whatever services they might have to sacrifice for
expansion. As well, there were 811 acres of Anaheim Hills land between the
proposed development and current development and there appeared to be "leap
frogging" development since there were areas that could be developed prior
to the Bauer Ranch that would not cost the City as much. If they did approve
it, she urged that the Council tell the taxpayers how they were going to pay
for it and not take away from the rest of the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mrs. Hall was asking that it be denied forever,
or that a time should be set for development.
Mrs. Hall stated that in the Task Force, the time limit for growth was supposed
to be 1983. She was not saying it should be denied forever but maintained
there was better timing than now and the General Plan and Fiscal Impact
timed the expansion for 4 or 5 years into the future. They were surprised to
see it so quickly and there were other things that needed to be done first.
Mr. Hank Rivera, 6283 East Rio Grande, representing SACPOA and the Pepper Tree
Hills Homeowners Association stated their main concerns had been expressed
by Mmes. Dinndorf and Hall. Although he did not know anything about the Fiscal
Impact, he was always concerned as to how much development would cost the
citizens in that section of the City. He was also concerned relative to "leap
frogging" development. RM-]200 zoning was indicated for the eastern end of
the proposed development and he was of the opinion that would be the first
portion to be developed. He urged the Council to take a close look at the
request and not to approve developments at the taxpayers' expense.
There were no further persons who wished to speak in opposition.
Mr. Tripp then stated all he could do at this time was to reemphasize the
salient points of the proposal. They realized the problems the City faced
with Proposition 13, especially regarding capital expenditures. He reiterated
that the zoning was conditioned upon the fact that they would front all capital
expenditures to the City. Any additional services required to the Canyon area
in general or ultimately, the Bauer Ranch specifically would be funded by Kaufman
& Broad (K&B). They were prepared to front the money and pay their fair share
of any capital improvements, etc. that would be attributed to maintain the
Bauer Ranch, either the total Canyon area or the regionalized area, to be paid
back to the developer of the Bauer Ranch by a reimbursement agreement or what-
ever vehicle that could be worked out between the developer and the City for
future development in the area. The intent was to have the development pay for
itself as it would grow and expand. That was their whole concept and the one
about which everyone was concerned.
79-105 :
City Halls Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Janaury 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Regarding operating costs, staff's report based on current City Policy showed
a $180,000 a year deficit. Their report showed a $123,000 surplus. He did
not know what the discrepancies were, but if the area was designated for more
commercial, either on the Bauer Ranch or in that immediate area, more commercial
would change even staff's deficit to some sort of surplus. If more commercial
was shown to be feasible and ultimately developed in the area, it would have
helped the $180,000 deficit shown in the staff report or conversely increase the
surplus they were showing.
Regarding "leap frogging" and expanding outward beyond certain time frames, should
they receive approval of the requested PC zoning, there were numerous approvals
that must be obtained through the City involving a lengthy process. Consequently
the economic questions would have to be worked out, plans drawn and approved,
etc. The actual development process would take a considerable amount of time
and therefore houses were not going to be built next month or even the next
year. All they were asking at this point was approval of the PC zoning in
order to proceed with more specific plans so that they could come back and
work out the economic questions by fronting the capital expenditure costs and
reimbursement agreement. The PC zoning would give them a framework so that
they could go on to the next step in a long line of approvals. He did not
view it as prematurely leap f~ogging, but the next logical step to be taken in the
Canyon.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the comment made that the medium density planned
for the east end of the property would be developed first. She wanted to know
if that was the developers' intent.
Mr. Tripp answered that was just the opposite of their thinking. They submitted
a phased plan starting on the western portion and proceeding easterly. Everything
that was pertinent to development was either in the center of the property or
westerly, and the easterly end would be one of the last areas to be developed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, if the zoning was approved and a condition attached
to it that the western portion would have to be developed before starting on
the eastern portion, if that would affect them.
Mr. Tripp stated it would in many ways from a timing standpoint because they
would have to do some replanning and restudying. They would have to finalize
or put more commercial ideas into concrete, and it would be necessary to discuss
the matter with staff and with shopping center developers and to do some planning
in the western end.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked to hear from Ashley Economics to clarify the
difference in figures between the City's report and the Ashley report.
Ms. Kelly McDermitt, Senior Associate, Ashley Economics (known as the Newport
Economics Group since January 1) stated she had prepared a brief outline of
the difference between the computer program developed by staff and the Fiscal
Impact Analysis developed by her firm as follows:
79-106
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUN(:IL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The computer program as presented at the December 4, 1978 Planning Commission
meeting by staff showed total revenues of $11.2 million, total cost of $20.4
million and a deficit of $9.1 million. However, the $20.4 million cost figure
contained a figure for streets in the amount of $4.4 million. With that
figure removed, as they wished to have it removed because the developer intended
to pay for all streets, the cost would be reduced as follows:
Total revenues would remain the same, $11.2 million, the revised total cost
would be reduced from $20.4 million to $16 million, and the revised deficit
to $4.7 million. That cost factor was still incorrect from their point of
view because it contained the capita] costs which would be advanced by K&B.
With that $2.6 million figure removed, the total cost again would be reduced
as follows:
Total revenues, $11.2 million, revised total cost, $13.4 million and the revised
deficit of $2.1 million over ten years. The revised deficit represented the
operational deficit over ten years or an average of $214,000, her figure being
higher than the Planning Department's figure of $180,000 a year.
The reason the Planning Department and her firm disagreed as to the net deficit
amount was that the Planning Department had one theory about which revenues
ought to be included and her firm had another. According to the actual
Fiscal Impact Analysis, the Bauer Ranch project would provide a small annual
surplus to Anaheim, but according to the Planning Department model, the project
would create a deficit. That was due to the fact that the only revenue items
included in the computer model were the following:
Per capita revenue based upon and derived entirely from population estimates,
utility revenues, construction revenues and revenues from property taxes and
business licenses. Excluded from the program were all those revenues based
upon criteria other than population or based only in part upon population, but
nevertheless were expended upon the population at large.
In summary, the only revenues considered applicable by the Planning Department
were those directly associated with growth. All others were presumed either
to be non-existent or entirely inapplicable. Costs, however, would go on
creating the above mentioned deficit of between $180,000 and $214,000 per
year over a ten-year period. The position of her firm in that regard was
that average costs and revenues included all items in the budget and not just
those affected by individual projects. To determine whether growth would
have a visible or invisible financial impact, average costs and revenues typical
of a jurisdiction should be estimated and compared. Further, increases in cost
were not always attributable to specific new growth areas or developments, but
to the attainment of a certain city size.
Ms. McDermitt also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that their report was
based on 21 acres of commercial and also on the effects of Proposition 13.
The report was revised completely after the passage of Proposition 13 in
order to assuage some of the concerns expressed by the Vista del Rio people.
She met with the developers and stated if they wanted to get the project passed,
79-107
City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
they would have to front all of the capital costs because cities could not pay
to do so any longer. For that reason, they met with all City departments and
determined that there would be certain total costs anticipated by Anaheim for
that area and certain of those costs directly necessitated by the Bauer Ranch.
Those costs which would represent the Bauer Ranch fair share, the developer
intended to not only pay for his fair share, but also to advance to the City
all the money it would need to install every capital improvement in the area
necessitated by the project. That is what they meant when they said, in terms
of capital costs, there would be no cost to the City generated by the Bauer
Ranch.
Ms. McDermitt then confirmed for Councilman Kott that the substantiation for
their financial impact report, as opposed to the City's report, was a difference
in theory as to what revenue items ought to be included.
Ms. Lucado expained that staff fiscal impact model was developed with the
advice of several professionals in the field relative to economics and the
model utilized on methodology that they felt was applicable to costs and
revenues that could be accurately attributed to new growth. Regarding some
of the revenues as explained in the Ashley approach, staff felt it was difficult
to come to a given figure to assess new growth, and thus they ignored those types
of revenues and those types of costs so that they would correlate with one
another. They also received the advice of Budget and Audit relative to the
financial impact document and Mr. Ron Rothschild was available to answer
questions.
In answer to a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Ron Thompson,
Planning Director, relayed the following: Relative to the time frame for
studying the feasibility of more commercial in the area, it would be approx-
imatley 30 to 60 days. He would recommend a feasibility study rather than
an in depth EIR and any General Plan Amendment. They would subsequently
submit the results of the study and if it looked favorable for regional and
commercial center in the vicinity of the Weir Canyon area, they would recommend
to the City Council that when the developer came to the City, then the General
Plan Amendment could be processed through the Planning Department and with
an accompanying EIR focused on a particular development. Their preliminary
research looked favorable relative to the viability of a large regional shopping
center in the vicinity of Weir Canyon. At that time, they would also have
revised figures regarding the economic impact. They also took a subsequent
look at the situation after the passage of Proposition 13 and revenues might
be anticipated in the vicinity of $40,000 to $50,000 a year from a regional
shopping center.
Councilman Overho]t stated that they were being asked to approve a reclassification
for a PC zone with the thought that from time to time details of the development
would be submitted to them. He wanted to know what commitment the City would
be making with regard to the approval of development as they would be submitted
and what commitment they would be making today by approving the reclassification
to a Planned Community.
79-108
City Hallz Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jack White, Deputy City Attorney, explained that there were proposed and
approved by the Planning Commission some 20 plus conditions attached to the
resolution of intent for the rezoning to Planned Community. Some of those
conditions, because of the nature of the information they had at present were
indefinite to the extent that additional material needed to be obtained before
either the City or the developer could make a commitment as to the types of
financing or cost imposition, particularly Condition No. 21 regarding public
facilities, on how those would be financed and whether they would be paid by
the City or laid off against future developments in the area. That Condition
as approved by the Planning Commission simply stated that those items were as
yet to be determined mutually and in an agreeable fashion between the developer
and the City Council. The Council's approval of the Planned Community reclas-
sification today would still leave several open questions on which the City
Council would have to act. Probably the most fundamental based upon the questions
asked by the Council related to the financing aspect of the public facilities.
If the resolution of intent was approved today, prior to any rezoning to a
specific zone, the developer would have to submit specific plans including how
costs would be imposed, how they would be recaptured, the City's liability,
etc., and the City Council would have to agree to that plan. If they did not
agree, the developer would not have met the conditions and the rezoning to
those specific zones as proposed would not be permitted. The bottom line being,
regardless of Council's action today, there were still questions that had to
be resolved and subsequently they would have to come back to the City Council
for determination. Thus, while committing to a Planned Community zone,
they would be committing to it conditionally, and if those conditions were not
satisfied, there would be no rezoning or development and, therefore, they
were not committing to anything.
Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Thompson to relay the historical background and
sequences of events which took place when Anaheim Hills was initially annexed
to Anaheim and they came forth with a similar Planned Community. After
Mr. Thompson's presentation, the Mayor stated of concern to him was that the
proposed plan allocating appropriate acreage specifically for commercial might
not provide the feasibility needed in order to obtain an economic balance. He
thereupon questioned the City Manager and City Attorney as to whether or not a
condition could be attached where, if the Council looked favorably upon the
request, it could be insured that, if necessary, there could be an expansion
or lateralization of that general commercial area in order to balance the
project economically.
City Manager Talley answered that the City Attorney recommended an additional
condition of approval as follows: "No ordinance reclassifying any portion of
the property designated on the Zoning Element of the General Plan of Development
(Revision No. 1) as Areas lB, 3D and the portion of Area 81 lying between Areas
lB and 3D shall be introduced until such time as a feasibility study for
commercial development has been completed by the City Planning Department and
the amount and extent of any additional site for commercial development
within said areas has been determined and approved by the City Council. In
the event any portion of said commercial site falls within the above specified
79-109
~ity. Hall~ Awaheim C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
area or areas, the developer shall submit an amendment to the General Plan of
Development and any other applications necessary to reclassify the designated
site for commercial development consistent with the approved feasibility study."
Mr. Talley continued that the Bauer Ranch people were aware that the foregoing
would be recommended to the Council. Thus it would be his recommendation that
the Council limit them in their development to that condition. If they could
not generate enough commercial development within that property to satisfy
City staff and the Planning Commission, that they would come forward to the
Council with a different recommendation, and it would be their obligation as
well to see if some could be developed immediately adjacent. If not, they
would recommend that any ordinance reclassifying any portion of that flatland
property may not be considered by the Council.
Regarding a time frame, they would be limited by two things: (1) How much
interest they could develop and (2) How much assistance the developer could
give in generating interest by people who want to put in commercial development.
Mayor Seymour recounted some of the events that took place during the 55 meetings
of the original Task Force and stated that he viewed the General Plan that came
out of those meetings as a planning device that should lead the elected leadership
to be sensitive to the quality, as well as quantity, of the development in the
Canyon. Since the passage of Proposition 13, it was clear that there could not
and hopefully would not be any future development in the City either through
up-front cost or continuing costs of providing services that would be borne
by the exisiting residents and taxpayers of the City. At the last work session,
for instance, Fire Chief Riley and City Librarian Bill Griffith asked if growth
should continue in the Canyon, what would the Council suggest they do to prevent
having a new Fire Station or a new Library. The response to those two questions
was, the Council was not exactly certain where, how and when money would be
generated, but they were certain that they would not approve further development
in the Canyon without it clearly being able to stand on its own two feet econom-
ically from a standpoint of up-front capital for infrastructures, as well as
continuing requirements for City services pertaining to the revenues that
would come from that area to offset the expenses of providing the services.
Their most recent action was to say "yes" to LAFCO if they felt Anaheim was
best equipped as a City to serve the Bauer Ranch and the annexation. Anaheim
would assume the responsibility of providing those services, but they wanted
LAFCO to know, and staff was directed to tell them, that they would only serve
it under the auspices that it would carry its own weight economically. What
the Council had before them today was merely an extension of the direction
given to staff and LAFCO. Each and every proposed development to be built on
the property would have to come before the Council before issuing a building
permit. Further, financial arrangements and terms had to be worked out
between staff and the Economist (Ashley) as to what those concerns would turn
out to be in finality, as well as some offsetting balancing of economics
relative to commercial development. With those things in mind, he was confi-
dent that the caveats and requirements applied by the Planning Commission, as
well as the most recent recommendation by the City Attorney and the City Manager
would give all the assurances necessary.
79-110
City Hall~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 216 - CERTIFICATION: EIR No. 216 having been
reviewed by the City staff and determined 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 that potential project generated environmental impacts were reduced to
an insignificant level by the conformance with City plans, policies and ordin-
ances does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council-
man Roth, that EIR No. 216 is in compliance with the Calfornia Environmental
Quality Act and City and State guidelines.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated he would not oppose development
or growth and would support it, but not at the expense of the taxpayers. He
guessed there had probably been already thousands of dollars expended involving
staff time, reports and the like. It was a known fact that residential real
estate would not pay its own way. Since no industrial was slated for the
area, the scheme of trying to work in a regional shopping center was suggested
without any knowledge or expertise as to demand and the feasibility of such
a center. He could not accept that because in his opinion there was no basis
for doing so. He felt that the concerns he had, had not been answered and
his order of priorities would require first that the financial questions be
answered prior to any zoning on the property. He reiterated it should be
shown clearly that it would not cost taxpayers any money, and he would not be
acting in the best interest of the taxpayer if he voted favorably on the request.
Mayor Seymour answered that relative to staff time, staff's role was to advise
not only on the project, on the size and type involved, but also to advise
smaller homeowners wishing to build a family room. He also respected Council-
man Kott's continuing representation of the taxpayer, but he was of a different
mind relative to the subject project, and it did not mean that he did not
represent the same taxpayers equally as well. They were not approving any
specific zoning or anyth£ng that would permit development or the issuance of
building permits. They were merely approving the concept which was the first
step in a long journey. They had to do further research and a feasibility study
as to how much commercial was necessary to justify the economic viability of
the entire project and to ascertain the difference between the numbers submitted
by staff and those reported by Ashley Economics. Unless they took the first
step, they would never know the answers. By approving the proposal, Anaheim
would once more be demonstrating leadership. It was very easy for a city to
say now that Proposition 13 had passed, nobody else could live in the City.
What they wanted to do was find a way in which they could entertain quality
growth in the City, but not at a price to the taxpayer. He saw two things
happening: (1) an agreement as to the amount of money the developer would
have to put up-front in cold cash for the development of infrastructures and
capital improvements and, (2) what type of land use, specifically commercial,
would take place and the revenues as the result to offset any projected
deficits or short fall as predicted by staff economically.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion relative to certification of
EIR No. 216. Councilman ~)tt voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
79-111
_City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-50 for adoption subject to the
recommendations and conditions of the City Planning Commission, plus the
recommended additional condition of approval submitted by the City Attorney
and City Manager as previously articulated. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-50: 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. (77-78-64, PC)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-50 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (5:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:40 P.M.)
TERMINATION OF THE CITY'S MEMBERSHIP IN SCAG: Mayor Seymour first announced
that during the recess, he received a call from Gil Smith of the City of
Carson who was aware the Council was considering their membership in SCAG.
He (Smith) explained that there were great things happening in SCAG that were
going to make that organization much more responsive to local government and
subsequently asked that he (Seymour) pass on to the Council a request to
continue consideration of dropping membership for a period of time that would
permit him the opportunity to inform the Council as to the new development to
assure elected officials that SCAC would be more sensitive to local needs.
Councilman Roth stated that after the Council listened to the presentation by
the Chamber, he was going to renew his motion to withdraw from SCAG and if
SCAG had "cleaned up its act" six months or six years from now, whoever was
on the Council at that time might ask to rejoin the organization.
Mr. Alan Hughes, President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce stated he was
present at most of the meetings about gCAG, and he believed the Chamber did a good
job of assembling the people who had pros and cons relative to SCAG, and they
listened patiently to the presentations. They also listened to people who
were involved in SCAG and after many meetings and hours of deliberation, the
Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce unanimously recommended that the
City of Anaheim drop its membership in SCAG. He then referred to the letter
from the Chamber dated .January 18, 1979 which had been submitted to the Council
informing them of the position they adopted at their January 18, 1979 meeting,
the first on which was the recommendation just articulated. Attached to the
letter was a listing of six reasons for so doing (on file in the City Clerk's
office) upon which he elaborated.
79-112
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Hughes stated they felt the best way to fight the loss of
the original intent of SCAG was for the City to remove itself as a member at
this time, with the option that if the direction and control of SCAG was centered
on a regional basis and was responsible to that region, then perhaps they
could take another look at it at that time. However, the way the organization
was operating today, Anaheim should withdraw.
Councilman Roth stated he believed that the Chamber had done an admirable job
of getting a true understanding of another layer of government that Anaheim
did not need.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she wanted to emphasize certain points that
were extremely important: First, was the issue of the possibility of an
airport, which issue was in no way concluded. There was a suggestion from
Supervisor Clark that four more airport sites be considered as alternatives,
Bolsa Bay, Los Alamitos which covered west Anaheim, Seal Beach and the Chino
Hills site was still being pushed. That issue was one of the main reasons
Anaheim joined SCAG and the situation had not yet been resolved.
The Anaheim/Haster Street interchange originally had been a dead issue in
September of 1976, and it was not included in Caltrans'six-year budget.
However, at the November SCAG Executive Committee, she brought up the fact
it was not a local interchange but the gateway to Disneyland, and there were
10 million visitors a year going through that area. It was re-evaluated and
it had since become a reality for Anahei~ and it was a $5 million project.
The sound barriers along Route 57 Freeway were another dead issue and not
included in Caltrans' seven-year work program. She was able to get that
project back in and although they received help from other areas, it was the
final vote on the Executive Committee of SCAG that caused it to be placed
back in the program. That was a $3 million project scheduled to be completed
in April of 1980, with landscaping to follow upon the completion of the barriers.
In those items alone, Anaheim had to look no further to justify the $2,000 a
year dues.
As well, there was the regional Housing Allocation Model in the changing stages
at present. The City's Housing Coordinator, Lisa Stipkovich, her alternate on
the Committee, had been working for revisions, and she was able to have extracted
from the models some of the things that were not favorable to Anaheim and Orange
County and to have others included that made for a more equitable distribution.
She continued that the City had to live with decisions made whether they were
in SCAG or out of it and the fact that they could have a voice on the Executive
Committee was something that could not be bought. If they were not members,
they would likely be spending more than $2,000 a year without getting the same
top level service. SCAG was also now instituting a fee for A95 review.
Councilman Roth stated that Congressman Patterson indicated they should not
charge the $100 processing fee, but they might try to assess it as a scare
tactic. As well, a constant threat was that if a City was not a member of SCAG,
they would not get Federal grants, and he did not like being threatened.
79-113
~City Hall, Anaheim,_ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, asked to speak on the matter and stated that he
had been very interested in Anaheim's membership in SCAG for approximately
one and one-half years. He had written a letter to the editor of a newspaper
about a year ago requesting that the City drop out. He was not aware then
what the magnitude of expenditures were in going through SCAG and was able to
find out that the budget for SCAG was some $8.7 million; Councilwoman Kaywood
noted that was not the operating budget.
Mr. Brown continued that they could not convince any members of the Chamber
where they were spending $8.7 million, the point being, last summer the voters
of California through Proposition 13 told elected officials in the State that
they wanted less government expenditures and lower government costs. Every
local government had acted in some way to try to curb those excess costs. His
feeling was therefore they had local government in Anaheim, and representatives
in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. ]if they needed funds for given projects,
he questioned why they could not go to those individuals in order to get the
funds they were trying to receive.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was possible to do that, but they would have to
get in line. She also explained that they had to go through SCAG since that
was the Federal mandate. It was the clearing house and if there was a problem
with the application when it was submitted, the changes could be made locally,
and then it would be submitted.
After a further brief discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Brown on
the subject, Mr. Brown urged the Council to vote to withdraw from SCAG until
it could be changed to benefit local government.
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved that the City of Anaheim withdraw
from SCAG at the earliest opportunity. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that ever since SCAG was
invented, he felt it was another layer of government. He considered it
another scheme to control local government and that was what it had turned
out to be. If somehow SCAC would integrate itself into a truly local organi-
zation perhaps with the League of Cities, he might be interested in looking
at membership again. It was a matter of principle and not money and if the
organization was allowed to exist long enough, the City would become so
dependent on it that ultimately SCAG would be telling the City what to do.
For those reasons, he favored withdrawal from SCAG.
Councilman Overholt stated that he had the greatest respect for the time and
effort that Councilwoman Kaywood had put into SCAG. Having served in similar
capacity on regional groups, he was cognizant of the fact that a great deal
of work and time had to be devoted to it. He appreciated her efforts and those
she had made on behalf of the City.
He continued that his concern was over the obvious discontent with the insen-
sitivity of the organization to member cities. He was not a critic of regional
planning and believed it to be necessary in some form. What he had been able
to find out was that SCAG was an agency of the Federal Government and thus it
79-114
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
would be there no matter what Anaheim might do. He had attended the meeting of
the City/County Government Committee of the Chamber where Mayor Henry Wedaa
appeared and the statement was made that there was always the possibility if
a city did not participate, they might be placed further down the line. However,
he did not consider it a threat. SCAG, like many organizations, as it was
growing in size had become less sensitive to the interests of the member agencies,
in this case, the city. It could be changed if they became sensitive to the
members and he hoped would be changed. The finances would indicate why it was
insensitive. His understanding was that $180,000 for the budget was derived
from dues. If the operating budget was the difference between $10 million and
$8.7 million, $1.3 million was the operating budget, $180,000 of which was
derived from the cities. Thus SCAG did not owe a great allegiance to the people
who paid the dues.
In concluding, Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the motion to
withdraw with the suggestion that staff monitor the City's record on dealings
with SCAG as a non-member and schedule another look at the situation in six months.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the timing was ironic because in March, Supervi-
sor Diedrich would be President of SCAG and Mr. Wedaa, First Vice-President. She
did not remember two from the same county being in that position. If anything,
they would be leaning more to Orange County than ever before.
Councilman Seymour stated he was going to support the motion. When the City ~
became a member of SCAG in 1974, there were two primary motivations for joining
the organization: (1) to defeat the possibility of a location of an international
airport in the Chino Hills, and (2) he always felt that by working within an
organization, more could be accomplished than being outside that organization.
Five years later, the Chino Hills issue was still in the fore and he did not believe
they had been successful in working within the organization. SCAG had become
such a "monster", they were unable to influence its direction and sensitivity
and he relayed an instance of that insensitivity relative to the Air Quality
~nagement Plan mandated by the Federal government which, if implemented, would
cost taxpayers of ~aheim over $10 million per year. In his opinion, SCAG was
of no assistance whatsoever in the City's opposition to the Plan. This finally
caused him to arrive at his decision to withdraw from SCAG. He, too as Council-
man Overholt would like to monitor their activities and if SCAG was going to be
more sensitive to local concerns and issues as advised by Mr. Smith this after-
noon and if that could be truly demonstrated, he would be the first to offer a
motion to get Anaheim back into SCAG.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that although she disagreed with many of the things
that had been said, having been involved and seeing things differently, if it
was the Council's determination to withdraw, she was going to go along with
them and vote with the rest of the Council in the spirit of democracy.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that Anaheim withdraw from SCAG.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
79-115
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January ~3, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
123/175: PREPARATION OF 1977-78 REPORT TO BONDHOLDERS - WATER SYSTEM INSPECTION:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-51 for adoption, as recommended by the
Public Utilities Board in memorandum dated January 15, 1979, recommending that
the Council approve an agreement with PRC TOUPS Corporation for preparation of
the 1977-78 report to bondholders, concerning water system inspection. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH PRC TOUPS CORPORATION CONCERNING WATER SYSTEM INSPEC-
TION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOESr
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overho]t, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-51 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The claim submitted by John Sayer for
vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of said vehicle being struck
by a City fire truck, on or about December 14, 1978 was allowed in the amount
of $42.09, as recommended by the City Insurance Administrator.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the PUC Application Nos. 58410, 58411 and 58412, in the matter
of the application of Orange Coast Sightseeing service between its Buena Park
and Anaheim Service Areas, on the one hand, and the Terminal of Harbor Carriers,
Long Beach on the other hand; for authority to extend its Buena Park and Anaheim
Areas; and for authority to establish a tour of Universal City Studios excluding
NBC Studios, respectively.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of January 3, 1979.
c. 156: Police Department - Monthly report for December 1978.
d. 175: Utilities Department, Customer Service Division - Monthly report for
December 1978.
e. 105: Library Board - Minutes of December 18, 1978.
f. 140: Library Board - Monthly reports for November and December 1978.
79-116
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, Ca~ifprn.~a ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Police Chief:
a. Public Dance Permit submitted by Empresa Frias for a public dance to be
held February 10, 1979, 7:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
(Cruz Frias, applicant)
b. Amusement Device Permit submitted by Minit Market #8, 1581 West Romneya
Street for two (2) pin ball machines. (William Archer Collar, applicant)
c. Amusement Device Permit submitted by Golden Dey, 2625 West Lincoln Avenue
for one (1) pin ball, one (1) foos ball game and one (1) juke box. (William
Archer Collar, applicant)
d. Private Patrol Permit submitted by Mission Protection International to
provide security services for Orange County and Los Angeles County. (Charles
Thomas King, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 3, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information, with a notation that the 22-day appeal period would expire Thursday,
January 25, 1979.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1922: Submitted by Hilmer and Mabel Heitman to
permit a contractor's storage yard on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at
3803 West Ball Road with a waiver of permitted structures.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-6, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 1922 and granted negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1924: Submitted by Kenneth Kallman to permit an
auto upholstery shop on CL zoned property located at 1743 West Lincoln Avenue
with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-7, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1924 and granted negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that on Page 9 of the staff report to the Planning
Commission Item 14 indicated, "required parking is 49 spaces .... " She believed
that to be 69.
Miss Santalahti confirmed that the Resolution was corrected to reflect 69 spaces
and 49 was in error.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1926: Submitted by the Bila Family Trust, to
permit office uses in a residential structure on C-O zoned property located
at 1511 East Lincoln Avenue with code waivers of: (a) location of parking
spaces and, (2) maximum sign area.
79-117
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-2, granted in part
Conditional Use Permit No. 1926 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
Although no action was necessary by the Council, Councilman Roth stated he
was going to abstain because his partner had sold the subject property;
Councilman Overholt stated he would also abstain because he represented
the applicant.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1927: Submitted by Las Tiendas de Yorba to permit
on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant on CL(SC) zoned property
located 5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road with a waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-4, granted in
part Conditional Use Permit No. 1927 and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
Although no Council action was necessary, Councilman Seymour abstained because
he believed that the subject might be a shopping center wherein he had office
space.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3057 (TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10585 AND 10586): Request by Texaco
Anaheim Hills, Inc., to establish a l-lot, 51-unit condominium subdivision, and
l-lot, 37-unit condominium subdivision, respectively, on RM-4000(SC) zoned
property located on the west side of Nohl Ranch Road, south of the centerline
of Canyon Rim Road, with waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-3, granted
Variance No. 3057 (Tentative Tract Nos. 10585 and 10586) and granted negative
declaration status.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2454 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Bill Allen, Jr.
for an extension of time to Variance No. 2454, to permit the continued use of
a nonconforming building until the residential structure being used as an office
is removed and replaced with a building conforming to the industrial site
development standards.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Variance No. 2454,
to expire January 8, 1980.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 149 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND EIR NO. 222:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, February 13, 1979
at 3:00 P.M., was set as the date and time for public hearing to consider General
Plan Amendment No. 149, land use for property located on the east side of Knott
Street, approximately 660 feet north of the centerline of Ball road, and the
Noise Element, Negative Declaration for the land use and EIR No. 222 for the
Noise Element. MOTION CARRIED.
79-118
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-52 and
79R-53, 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. 79R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Fredericks
Development Corp., two deeds; Tus-Lo Properties)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-53: 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: INSTALLATION
AND REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTING LUMINAIRES AND LAMPS - HUD
AREAS II & III, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-676-6340-73630-37300 AND 25-676-6340-73640-
37300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 15, 1979 at 2:00 P.M.)
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. 79R-52 and 79R-53, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
102: ORDINANCE NO. 3956 RELATING TO DOGS: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance
No. 3956 for adoption and stated that a reasonable fine would be $50 and that
the City Attorney's office could handle the situation.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the enforcement would involve no additional
cost to the City as far as his office was concerned, but the Police Chief indicated
that there would be costs from his standpoint.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not understand the report from the Chief since he
thought he understood previously from the City Manager that the Police Department
was not going to be involved in the matter at all, but rather the City Attorney's
office was going to receive the complaint from the citizen and handle it accordingly.
City Manager Talley stated thay would prefer that it be handled in that manner,
but the discussion that took place indicated that a policeman would make the
citation and if that occurred, the Chief was pointing out that the average cost
per service was approxiamtely $20 and, therefore, an estimated cost of approximately
$12,000 per year.
79-119
_City Hall~ Ana_heim, Califo______rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated the alternative to that would be to have the citizens call
the City Attorney's office and subsequently to come in and file a complaint
with the City Attorney's office.
Mr. Hopkins stated if the Ordinance was approved, if a police officer was called
and observed violation, he could issue a citation. If not, the citizen could
go to the City Attorney's office and fill out a form, and they would then determine
whether or not a complete complaint should be issued. However, there could
be some police time involved if people called the police to investigate or if an
officer observed the violation. It was unlikely that he would get to the scene
in time, but experience showed that certain neighborhood disputes would arise
and that could entail having the police officer write a report.
The Mayor suggested that the Police Department refer the matter to the City
Attorney's office if there was no chance to observe the violation and the
citizen could then file a complaint; Mr. Hopkins stated it could be handled
in that fashion.
Mr. Talley stated that the Chief recommended it be handled by the County.
Councilman Roth stated Animal Control was a function of the County and the
Board of Supervisors already had a provision in their ordinance pertaining to
the matter. He suggested if they went to the Board and asked them to change
their ordinance to include private property, the matter would be solved since
it contained all of the provisions in which Councilman Kott was interested.
The Mayor was of the opinion that if they did so the County would request a
trade-off in return.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the County ordinance was basically a trespass
ordinance and did not provide for any clean-up of feces deposited by an animal,
and it would have to be amended in order to cover private property.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a possibility that they would have to
hire another attorney to handle such complaints.
Mr. Hopkins did not believe that would be necessary. He explained that no
complaints were written up by the Police Department before they were referred
to his office. If a person went to his office individually, they would have
to take a report. The other alternative would be to have the Police Department
take the report and bring it to the City Attorney's office where they would
review it. The experience in other cities showed that there were not many
actual complaints involved.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not ask for an opinion from the Chief of
Police; Mr. Talley stated it was requested. Councilman Kott then continued
stating that the citizens of the community had a right to have their property
protected and if they wanted such control, it was in the best interest of the
City. He had received many favorable calls on the proposed ordinance. He did
not view it as being different from any other form of trespassing where property
was destroyed.
79-120
City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated his understanding was that the City Attorney's perception
of the cost of enforcement would be through that office without involving the
Police Department. He asked Mr. Hopkins if he could handle the cost of enforcing
the ordinance with the fine they had imposed.
Mr. Hopkins agreed, but pointed out as was indicated on Page 2 of his report,
that there was a possibility that an officer could take a report and issue a
citation on information and belief. A citizen, however, might demand that an
officer be dispatched to the scene after some incident and that the officer
issue a citation. Although he did not recommend that procedure, he emphasized
that the citizen might insist that it be done on information and belief, and thus
it could involve the Police Department, as well as his office.
Mayor Seymour suggested that the ordinance be implemented with the understanding
and on the basis that the City Attorney to the greatest degree possible would
enforce the ordinance and the program would have to be appraised from a cost
standpoint as it progressed. He concurred with Councilman Roth in having the
County handle the matter, but there were two reasons he did not feel they should
do so if they were serious about the ordinance: (1) he did not believe the
County was easily going to amend their ordinance, recognizing a cost in the day
of Proposition 13 without wanting some remuneration in return and (2) it had been
his personal experience that the Animal Control Authority was extremely slow
in responding. Subsequently they would receive more complaints over the fact
that they passed an ordinance,but yet it was not possible to get any enforcement.
Therefore, he asked that the Council implement it by going through the City
Attorney and that the Police not get involved and that the situation be assessed
in three to six months to evaluate the economic aspects. Perhaps at that point,
they would have to double the fine.
Councilman Roth stated he would support the proposed ordinance with the under-
standing that they would evaluate the experience resulting therefrom in 90 days.
Mr. Hopkins stated if the Ordinance was amended to a $50 fine, it would be
necessary to have an amended first reading, since when it was originally offered
for first reading, the fine was stipulated as $20.
Councilman Kott thereupon offered Ordinance No. 3956 for amended first reading,
with the inclusion of a $50 fine.
ORDINANCE NO. 3956: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 8,
CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 8.08.060
RELATING TO DOGS.
In closing, Councilman Kott stated he was not biased against dogs or dog owners,
but he was for the preservation of the right people had against destruction of
their property.
79-121
C~_t.y }tj~_ll_~__An__ah___eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3957: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3957 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3957: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-29, RM-4000, Tract No. 10178)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3957 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3958 THROUGH 3960: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
Nos. 3958 through 3960, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3958: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-52, RS-A-43,000, Santa
Ana Canyon No. 5 Annexation)
ORDINANCE NO. 3959: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-12, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 3960: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(32), RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3958 through 3960, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3961: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3961 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3961: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(33), RS-HS-22,000)
119: LETTER OF RECOGNITION TO MEL GAUER: Councilman Overholt stated he would
be happy to present the letter of recognition by the Council to Mel Gauer on
Monday, January 29, 1979, and that Mr. Gauer would be most appreciative of the
recognition of the Council for his services to the City.
105: REQUEST TO CHANGE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING NIGHT: Councilman Overholt reported
that at the recent Library Board meeting, Mr. Pickler announced that he was
appointed to the Orange County Planning Commission. Mr. Pickler was also desirous
of continuing his term on the Library Board. The Board therefore changed their
meeting night to Thursday instead of Monday evenings, so that Mr. Pickler could
continue as Board Chairman as he had requested.
79-122
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
139: OPPOSITION TO TERRITORIAL RATING CHANGES ON AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE: Council-
woman Kaywood referred to the letter received from Mr. Sullivan of the Automobile
Club regarding a territorial rating change on automobile insurance. She was
going to move that a resolution be drawn opposing the rating change which, in
essence, would mean an 11% increase for Anaheim, with higher rates for two-thirds
of the state as well.
Mayor Seymour expressed his agreement, but recommended that she copy the Council
so that they might have an opportunity to evaluate the matter and discuss it
at the next meeting.
By general consent, consideration of the subject rating change on automobile
insurance was continued one week.
163: METROPOLITAN BUSING PLAN: Coun~ilman Roth reported that he attended a
bus walk meeting the prior evening, January 22, 1979, at Canyon High School
where hundreds of angry people met to discuss the newly proposed Metropolitan
Busing Plan. It was stated by Mrs. Doris Allen that Anaheim school children
under the Master Plan must be bused into the Compton and Lynwood areas. Coun-
cilman Roth pointed out, however, it was not a racial problem because minorities,
including Blacks, were opposed to the plan.
He continued that Senator Alan Robbins who was a Mexican/American, was quoted
in the paper as saying that the Metropolitan Plan would cost the taxpayers
$1.1 billion dollars annually and that all districts in the state would share
the costs. Senator Robbins was sponsoring a bill, SCA2 which would involve a
State Constitutional change. It had passed the State Senate three times, and
it was now in the Assembly where it had been defeated twice previously. They
had received a copy of the City of Burbank's resolution in support of Senator
Robbins' bill, and he explained all they were trying to do was to give the
people an opportunity to vote on a change to the Constitution. The only difference
between the State and Federal Constitution was the State Constitution permitted
busing in a state-wide area for racial balance and the Federal Constitution
stated that busing was permitted for educational equality. SCA2 was nothing more
than to permit the people to vote on changing the State Constitution to conform
with the Federal. He realized that perhaps the City Council should not get
into school problems or things of that nature, but he was particularly concerned
about the tax money necessary to implement the Plan and the disruption of many
of the citizens in the community ~f the Plan were implemented. He therefore
recommended that the Council support Burbank's resolution opposing forced
busing and the Metropoitan Plan.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No~ 79R-54 for adoption, supporting SCA2
calling for a State Constitutional change to conform with that of the Federal
Government. Refer to Resolution Book~
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING ITS SUPPORT FOR SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND ESTABLISHING
ITS STRONG OPPOSITION TO INVOLUNTARY INTERSCHOOL DISTRICT BUSING OF SCHOOL
CHILDREN.
79-123
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour agreed with Councilman Roth and commended him for taking active
interest in the Canyon relative to the issue. He considered busing to be a big
waste of taxpayer money and a forced attempt at integration that was, in his
opinion, totally backwards and it was not the way to go about it. Instead it
was a matter of inviting integration w~thin the community, rather than doing it
logistically with buses, and thus he was totally supportive of the proposed
resolution. He did not know whether the Council wanted to deal with it today
or if they wished to do some research and vote on it at a later time.
Councilman Overholt was of the opinion that they should not be bashful in
supporting people or groups that were involved with school issues because
school districts were not bashful in getting involved in City matters when
it affected them. He believed it was appropriate, and he shared both Councilman
Roth's and the Mayor's view on the matter that they should strongly oppose the
Metropolitan Plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern not only for the loss of local control,
but also the fact that such busing would greate added air pollution and possible
accidents with the number of buses and the length of drive they had in mind, and
she was in favor of supporting the resolution.
Councilman Kott stated that he was in favor of the Resolution and was opposed
to school busing even before it was conceived. He asked for clarification
however if they were talking about busing or about changing State laws to conform
with Federal laws.
Councilman Roth confirmed the reason that the Metropolitan Plan was being presented
to the State of California was due to the fact that the State Constitution permitted
busing for racial balance. In order to prevent forced busing in California, an
amendment was necessary to be voted upon by the people in order to change the
Constitution that would then conform to the Federal Constitution which permitted
busing only on a balance of educational qualities.
A vote was taken on the foregoing Resolution.
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. 79R-54 duly passed and adopted.
150: APPEAL OF DECISION OF STATE HISTORIC COMMISSION: Councilman Seymour referred
to the Historic Preservation application that went to the State of California,
which application was discussed at the Redevelopment Agency meeting today. As
the Council was aware, the Redevelopment Department prepared, and he signed, a
letter to the United States Department of Interior to appeal the decision of the
State of California Historic Commission relative to historic buildings in
Anaheim. He reported that he would be in Washington, D.C., beginning Thursday,
79-124
Cit7 ~al!, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 23, 19797 1:30 P.M.
January 25, 1979, on non-City business and at his own expense and while there,
would do all possible in appealing the decision of the State Commission. He
would be meeting with Congressman Patterson and Robert Mendelson, Assistant
to the Secretary of the Interior, Congressman Dannemeyer and William Murtaugh,
Keeper of the National Register. If the Council had any additional information
or material to pass on to those officials to more clearly present the City's
case, he would be more than happy to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that he might want to take with him a copy of
the SCAG letters written when the Executive Committee passed the resolution
objecting to the State's decision and procedures. They should~be informed
that there was a great deal of feeling on the part of all the cities and
counties involved that they did not like the manner in which the State
Commission was operating.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn, Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:05 P.M.