1979/10/1679-1140
City Ha. ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
PROGRAM BUDCET MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were ismued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
"Toastmasters Communications Month in Anaheim" October - 1979
"Radio Week in Anaheim - October 15 - 21, 1979
Mr. John Graycarek accepted the Toastmasters Communication proclamation and
Mr. Fred Pfadt accepted the proclamation for Radio Week.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Miss Sylvia Flynn for her valiant
action on October 9, 1979 in saving the life of Mrs. Pearl McGowan.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the minutes of the regular meeting of May 22, 1979 were approved, subject to
typographical errors. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $732,617.46, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
79-1141
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
158: ACQUISITION OF LOT 20 OF THE SCHAFFER-OSWALD SUBDIVISION: Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-586 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated October 10, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Development
Norm Priest, authorizing an agreement with John J. Barrera, in the amount of
$58,000 for acquisition of Lot 20 of the Schaffer-Oswald subdivision, 305 East
Julianna Street, am part of an effort to acquire land in the Patt Street area
to recycle for new construction. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-586: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL
PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-586 duly passed and adopted.
123: DESIGN OF FIRE STATION NO. 8: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
79R-587 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 4, 1979 from
the Fire Chief James Riley, approving an agreement with Dan L. Rowland and
Associates, Inc., for architectural services in connection with the design of
Fire Station No. 8 (Riverdale Street near Lakeview Avenue). Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-587: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DAN L. ROWLAND AND
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DESIGN OF FIRE STATION NO. 8.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-587 duly passed and adopted.
123: IMPROVEMENTS AT THE OAK CANYON NATURE CENTER: Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 79R-588 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 10,
1979 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth, authorizing an agreement with
California Conservation Corps (CCC) to perform improvements at the Oak Canyon
Nature Center. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-588: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
79-1142
City Hall~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor dec]~r~ Re~lution No. 79R-588 duly passed and adopted.
123: HELICOPTER PATROL CHECK SERVICES TO THE CITY OF BREA: Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 79R-589 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
October 10, 1979 from Chief of Police George Tielsch, authorizing a short-
term contract with the City of Brea to supply helicopter patrol check services
for fire suppression purposes to the Carbon Canyon area in the City of Brea,
commencing October 20, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-589: RESOLUTION OF ~HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BREA IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CONTRACTING OF CERTAIN POLICE HELICOPTER SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
Seymour
None
'£he Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-589 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session, Councilman Bay seconded the~motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:37 P.M.)
AFTER RE~ES$: '~,~r ~vr~ur called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (2:22 P.M.)
153: SALARY ADJUSTMENTS: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on
memorandum dated October 10, 1979 from the Human Resources Director (on file in
the City Clerk's office) regarding salary adjustments for non-bargaining unit
employees, containing an analysis of the salary resolutions which were being rec-
ommended for program ma~agement, staff and supervisory management, confidential
employees and unrepresented employees. Included in two separate memorandums
(October 8 and Oc~ob~r [0, respectively) from the Human Resources Director was
a recommendation that t~e Council, by resolution, create the classification of
Traffic Sig~ai ~e~hn~ ~ and that the salary schedule for the classification
of Librarian III be c,~rrected, nunc pro tunc, effective October 12, 1979.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 79R-590 through 79R-595, both inclusive,
for adoption, as recommended by the Human Resources Director. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-590: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-94 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ADJUSTING RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR PROGRAM MANAGERS.
79-1143
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY
MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-660 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-592: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CONFIDENTIAL JOB CLASSES AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-658 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-593: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED JOB CLASSES AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-659 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-594: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-130, NUNC PRO TUNC, WHICH ESTABLISHED NEW LIBRARY
JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, BY CORRECTING THE SALARY SCHEDULE OF THE CLASSIFICATION
OF LIBRARIAN III.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-595: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY
EMPLOYEES UNIT.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood, overall they
were talking about an average increase of 6.3% for the ensuing year.
City Manager Talley stated that was correct for 58 positions in the Program
Manager group and all of the positions of the 404 employees concerned were
recommended for approximately 6%. A 6% increase for all the bargaining units
went into effect October 12, 1979.
The Mayor asked when their last pay increase took place and the amount.
Mr. Talley explained that last year because of Proposition 13, the uncertain
status of the "bailout" bill and the City budget, the Council elected to
hold the Program Manager consideration from October of 1978 until early 1979.
Approximately January or February, the Council approved salary increases averaging
5.5%. Thus, combined with the 6.3%, they received 11.8% for the 24-month
period, which compared with 6% and 6%, or 12%, approved by the Council for all
bargaining units.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-590 through 79R-595, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
79-1144
City H~.i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 4063 - PERTAINING TO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES: City
Manager Talley recounted that on October 2, 1979, the Council requested that
staff review in some depth the current problem of prostitution control in the
City (see minutes that date). He then briefed the Council on memorandum dated
October 12, 1979 from the Chief of Police on a proposed Task Force operation
for prostitution control (on file in the City Clerk's office), consisting of
four phases to be carried out by the Police Department, City Attorney, City
Manager, respectively, and recommending that the Council create a community
awareness program. He then explained that the City Attorney had prepared an
ordinance which was necessary if they were going to successfully succeed.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated his office had prepared a 120-day morator-
ium ordinance, an emergency ordinance, to become effective immediately, which
~nder the provision of Charter Section 511, required four affirmative votes.
He then read the ordinance in its entirety.
Mayor Seymour then explained for the Chamber audience the reasoning behind the
ordinance. It was no secret that the City had a continuing prostitution problem
in its commercial/recreational area around Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard.
The Police Department had done an effective job of cleaning out prostitution
only to chase it to another City and then to have that city react and subse-
quently the problem returned to Anaheim. It had now spread into residential
neighborhoods close to schools in the form of dance studios and escort bureaus,
which he considered nothing but shams for prostitution and immoral conduct.
Being presented today was the beginning of what he called an open war on pros-
titution. The Council was committed to carry out the program and rid the City's
neighborhoods and commercial/recreation areas of that type of problem. However,
Jt would take more than an ordinance and the strong will of the Council to be
s~ccessful; it would ta~e the cooperation of all citizens in the City including
churches, PTA.s, citzens groups, legitimate businessmen and women to assist in
correcting the totally ~nacceptable condition now existing. As they followed
through with the program, there were going to be allegations from those businesses
that they were being harassed and being interfered with in the orderly conduct
of their business. They were going to have to look at the activity in the
courts relative to prostitution where, when they had hard facts deserving con-
viction in a court of law, some judges had seen fit to be extremely liberal in
applying punishment befitting the crime.
In concluding, the M~,yor emphasized they were looking for a partnership with
the citizens ~o achi,.w something that was going to be difficult, but which,
he believed, ~he Cou~.~i~ was committed to carry out.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Mayor had covered the situation fully;
Councilman Overholt commented that the Mayor had expressed his thoughts as well
and that the citizens would be happy to see the Council take action on what
many considered a real "cancer" in the community.
Councilman Bay stated that he would urge the Task Force to also look into
cooperation with the surrounding cities of Garden Grove, Buena Park, Fullerton
and others to join with .~naheim. Putting heat on in one spot only, was only
going to move the problem around, and he wanted to see it moved as far away as
possible.
79-1145
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4063 for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 4063: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LICENSING IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF "ADULT ENTERTAINMENT"
BUSINESSES, AS DEFINED HEREIN, DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF, AND DECLARING
THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4063 duly passed and adopted.
142/170: ORDINANCE NO. 4064 - PUBLIC MEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
AND PARCEL MAPS: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4064 for first
reading, as recommended in memorandum dated October 9, 1979 from the City
Attorney's office.
ORDINANCE NO. 4064: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAI{EIM ADDING SECTION 17.08.095
TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS.
112: O'BRIEN VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney and Carl Warren & Company were authorized
to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 31-06-43 (O'Brien vs. City of
Anaheim) for an amount not to exceed $2,500.00. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit sub-
mitted by Pyro Spectacular on behalf of Los Alamitos High School for discharge
of fireworks at Western High School Stadium on October 19, 1979 at 8:00 P.M.,
was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit sub-
mitted by Disneyland in connection with the Halloween Parade for discharge of
fireworks on October 27, 1979 at 7:30 P.M., at La Palma Park, was approved.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no" MOTION CARRIED.
139: SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 2: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-585
for adoption, supporting Proposition 2 on the November 6, 1979 ballot regarding
State interest rate regulations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-585: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAMEIM
ENDORSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 2 IN THE
NOVEMBER 6, 1979 ELECTION CONCERNING FAIR INTEREST RATES.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood reported that support of Proposition
2 had already passed at the League of California Cities meeting last Thursday.
The Council had previously discussed the matter and hoped to avoid mailing 26
copies of the resolution.
79-1146
City Hall, .Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood explained her "no" vote.' She had great
problems relative to the traffic circulation and since she did not have any
answers, she felt she must vote "nO".
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - REHEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher~ to permit
the sales of home furnishings on ML zoned property located at 1040 Kraemer Place.
A negative declaration was previously granted at the Council meeting of May 15,
1979 (see minutes that date) at which time the Council denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 1923 by Resolution No. 79R-276. A rehearing was requested by Mr.
Floyd Farano, attorney for the applicants, and granted on May 29, 1979, with
a public hearing scheduled and continued from August 28, 1979 and October 2,
1979, to this date.
The findings given in the staff report had previously been presented and thus
were not again presented at this time.
The Mayor asked if the .applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for the applicant, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton,
then briefed the Council on his 13-page presentation which was submitted to the
Council earlier in the day for their consideration (made a part of the record).
In addition, it contained 11 graphs, 10 of which depicted traffic levels on
Kraemer Boulevard, La Palma Avenue, and Kraemer Boulevard and La Palma Avenue
combined, generated from the businesses located on the subject property during
the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., as well as a summary sheet of the total
number of cars overall inclusive and exclusive of that generated by H & R
~lohnson (see page seven of the presentation for an explanation of the graphs).
A plot plan of the property was also included showing the precise locations of
the businesses, i.e. Ron's Bars and Stools, Curtis Furniture, Orange County
Furniture Gallery, and Mooney Carpets. Mr. Farano then requested that the
fifth business, H & R J~hnson, be taken out of the consideration of the Condi-
tional Use Permit since~ in his opinion, they qualified as a wholesale business.
Less than 1% of their t~tal business was done on a retail basis and 99% was on
a wholesale basis. They did have an "open to the public" sign and did not turn
away any public customers on a retail basi~, but they did not do much in the
way of a retail business. He was, therefore, going to ignore H & R Johnson
and reiterated that i~e ~ould like to have some kind of recognition at the end
of the hearing by the C~uncil that H & R Johnson was not in violation and was
in the industrial area ~y right and should not be a part of the application.
He also stated that although the parcels before the Council were submitted as
a single application, ali five were separate and should be treated as such.
Relative to the plot plan, they were trying to call to the Council's attention
that 80% of the land between Kraemer Place westward to White Star was engaged
in either a commercial ~se by a conditional use permit or the land was used for
public purposes.
In concluding, Mr. Farano asked that the Council study the graphs with the
thought in mind of establishing the fact that, (1) there was a substantial amount
of business frequenting the center from the industrial area and (2) from the
standpoint of compatibility, one would have to draw the conclusion that the
79-1147
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
property was no problem to the industrial area. The traffic generated consti-
tuted less than one-half of one percent of the traffic in the area. The
businesses did not present any kind of hardship or encroach on industrial uses.
Regarding anything offensive that could be emitted from the industrial area,
he stipulated that the first time that one of the tenants made a complaint
about an offensive odor or emission, they would take measures to discourage
such a complaint. They had never experienced anything that was offensive and
hoped that they had been good neighbors and were not offensive to anyone else.
The location was in an island of conditional use permitted commercial retail uses.
They felt they had shown that their concerns over the presence of retail was
probably every bit as offensive to them as to the owners of industrial property.
They were not a traditional retail use and never had been in the mode and manner
in which they conducted their business, but a quasi-commercial use. Their impact
in the area was very small and from the standpoint of compatibility, if any use
was compatible with an industrial use other than another industrial use, it
would be theirs.
Councilman Bay noted that from what Mr. Farano just indicated when he described
the operation of the five companies, without actually stating it, was that Curtis
Furniture was in the retail furniture business, Mooney was in the retail carpet
business, Orange County Furniture Gallery was in the retail furniture business
and Ron's Bars and Stools was in the retail furniture business. On the other
hand, he indicated the crystal-ceramic tile (H & R Johnson) was really in the
wholesale business.
Mr. Farano confirmed that was essentially correct. The primary business of the
operations at the subject location other than H & R Johnson at this point in time
was retail. They did a substantial amount of wholesale, but the prime business
at this time was retail. He then confirmed for Councilman Roth that they were
still stipulating to the hours of operation as previously stated. He then also
relayed the unexpired length of leases of all the businesses, other than H & R
Johnson, at the request of the Mayor.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Larry Sierk, Executive Vice President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce,
stated that the Chamber was not necessarily in opposition to the Council's
decision, but wanted to remind them that the Chamber, the Planning Commission
and the Planning Department had engaged in a long study in devising the new
ordinance and the day that it was accepted at the Council meeting with the
Chamber present, the Council carried even further than what the Chamber intended
in the policing area and other aspects. They did not.want to put people out of
business, but the Council's decision today could hinge on how the new ordinance
recently passed would operate. If they decided to relocate businesses, the
Chamber would do everything they could to the best of their ability to find
another location in Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour asked if there had been any discussion in the Chamber or any
ideas offered relative to a program or other like for cleaning up the industrial
area, but at the same time, precluding the businesses involved from going broke.
79 - 1148
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
was difficult to say that a given restaurant would not be open on weekends or
not open until 5:00 P.M. or the like, besides being difficult to enforce.
Mayor Seymour stated since he was the individual who requested the public hearing,
he should speak first on the matter. He felt there were three points that they
had to consider: (1) what was the highest and, best use of the property; (2) the
permanent residents that lived there; (3) given the type of use for the property,
had the Planning Commission taken adequate safeguards to insure a viable project.
Regarding the first point, if the property were raw land and a developer were
to approach the Planning Commission or City Council and suggest that they were
interested in placing housing in that 5.7 acres, whether single-family, apartments
or a mobile home park subdivision, he felt that proposal would automatically
receive an imminent d~nial by both the Commission and the Council. Looking
at the environment in which that property was located, it was his opinion that
they could not find a worse use or worse piece of property for residential
living. The Santa Ana Freeway was located at one side of that triangular piece
of property with an average daily traffic (ADT) count of 152,000 vehicles, the
other side of the triangle along Ball Road had 60,000 vehicles a day and the
third part of the triangle along Harbor Boulevard, an additional 60,000 vehicles
a day, totalling in effect 270,000 cars a day.
Relative to the people present today from other mobile home parks, he viewed
the situation as being different from a mobile home park. It was a travel trailer
park and advertised and operated that way, except for eight families. Therefore
he had no problem in the proposed use. Although they had the responsibility to
do whatever they could, that should be the last place to consider housing because
of the environment.
Relative to the eight residents, the reason after a meeting with Pat Kish that
he agreed to set the matter for public hearing was for his concern over those
~ight residents. Although the developer had already given many assurances to
the Planning Commission that they would attempt in every way possible to treat
those residents eq~i~abiy, he wanted more than that - he wanted a public hearing
for some way of assuring a guarantee that those eight residents would receive a
f~ir shake. He never considered making it a permanent mobile home park.
Relative to a settlem~?nt of $280,000 or $35,000 each, he found that totally un-
reasonable and he su[~stantiated that by some facts. Ms. Kish shared information
on coaches available of similar size and quality in various parks throughout
the City, somewhere b~tween $10,000 and $17,000. That would leave another $18,000
to apply to rent, and ~ calculated if there was only $15,000 to apply for rent,
and a resident moved into the Cherokee Mobile Home Park, for instance, with rent
of $150 a month, that would mean another $65 over their present monthly rate.
Thus there would be enough money to cover monthly rental payments for over 20
years and to him that was not reasonable, and he did not see any equity in that
proposal. He, as well ~s the Council, had seen the settlements made with three
of the eight residents which showed good faith and they were all different. He
was hopeful the remaining five could work something out as well. To adopt a
totally unreasonable position of $35,000 and not being willing to talk or attempt
to find a spot at some lesser figure told him that somebody had confrontation
in mind to see what they could do with the property owner. He was going to
suggest that the project be approved subject to the stipulations that had been
79-1149
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
made by the developer relative to paying relocation expenses and continuing to
attempt to deal fairly with the residents. He was confident from what he had
seen in the three proposals, that they had been very fair.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that there
would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval .of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for commercial recreation land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no sig-
nificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, there-
fore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-596 for adoption, granting Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2015, as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject
to the stipulations by the developer relative to paying relocation expenses and
continuing efforts to work out feasible arrangements with the remaining five
mobile home owners. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-596: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was still concerned
with the left-turn access from Harbor Boulevard north. There did not seem to be
a safe answer.
Mayor Seymour stated that he felt the Planning Commission did a good job and that
staff had done an excellent job in the eight months the project had been in
process with the proposed widening on Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. The
bottom line was that they would get one full traffic lane on each street. Now
there would be two fully improved traffic lanes to handle the additional 2,000
vehicle maximum projected to be generated by the project that they did not have
before.
Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor verbalized his position, as well, very
clearly. He also felt that perhaps Mr. Surburg in looking out for the interest
of his mother became caught up in a political type situation, rather than trying
to help the eight residents make the change that he believed they all felt would
be inevitable. The impossible dream could not occur, and he hoped that Mr. Surburg
would bend his efforts to assist in the process of Working with the developers
in relocating the residents in the best fashion possible. If he did that, he
would be doing a service to his mother and to the neighbors. He was going to
support the Mayor's resolution for all of the reasons he stated.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-596 duly passed and adopted.
79-1150
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ i:30.P.M.
Mr. Surburg explained that they did not say that they could not deal with the
owners. At the outset, they formed a group and felt more secure in dealing with
them as a group. The figure was reached in a living room in one of the homes,
going around the table and asking each individual relative to the bottom line
figure they felt they could relocate for and to recreate their lifestyle in
another park. Some people indicated less, others more, and the figure was
arrived at by a consensus of the eight people involved, in lieu of being able
to stay. ~rhe proposal was submitted to Lanikai at their request and there was no
extortion involved. The important thing was that they wanted to deal as a group
and the owners consistently refused to do so.
Additional questioning of Mr. Surburg by Councilman Overholt followed at the
conclusion of which, Mr. Surburg stated that he had not made any effort to seek
other mobile home sites where permanent residents might be located. Rather than
spending the time to relocate, he spent his time trying to save his mother's
home.
Mr. Stewart Parker, managing attorney of Senior Citizens Division of the Legal
Aid Society for Orange County, stated they rendered free legal services to senior
citizens who were indigent. One of the common areas of concern in the County
was relative to mobile home eviction of all kinds, particularly resulting in
change of the use of a park. The developer indicated that there were no legal
protections outside of the one-year allowance stipulation. That was not clearly
the case. They had litigated in two different mobile home parks the entitlement
of the residents to stay beyond 12 months and to stay an indefinite period,
based upon a law called irrevocable license, which he further explained.
Mr. Parker further explained that behind the scenes he had at least a part in
the negotiations that led to the proposal of $35,000 for each resident. It
was not a fixed but a flexible proposal presented to encourage a counter proposal.
The residents were hopeful of a solution, ideally that they would like to stay
as they were. As an alternative, the next best thing would be a large sum of
money.
The question arose relative to the developer providing an equivalent mobile home
in an adjacent area park. He did not think that any resident would disregard
that, and he reiterated that the attack had been to encourage a meaningful counter
proposal. He urged, if the Council did not decide to refuse the developer
permission to develop as an office site, that they impose a meaningful and
precise condition on this conditional use permit requiring relocation into
equivalent alternate locations.
The Mayor then stated that brief time would be allowed for summation by the
proponents; Mr. Jett asked for a few moments of discussion with Mr. Lacoz.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (4:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (4:55 P.M.)
Mr. Lacoz stated on behalf of the property owner, they had rights and nobody
addressed themselves to that fact. The property had been for sale for approxi-
mately three years. It had been openly advertised and offered to people who
79-1151
City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
operated mobile home parks and for one reason or another, it did not sell. He
did try to contact Mr. Martin by phone and one of the owners went to his trailer
and subsequently he (Lacoz) was told that Mr. Martin did not want to speak with
him. On a deal he made with one of the other tenants, he went out to trailer
parks and found one not on the freeway, with 900-foot of frontage, much quieter
at $30 a month more, and there were spaces available. That was in Romneya Park.
They would be happy to meet with those people and try to solve their problems.
Mr. Jett stated that relative to the three people with whom they had made deals,
they wanted to negotiate in a private manner and he believed that the Mayor had
been in receipt of the agreement reached with each of those people. It was not
that they were hiding the fact, but it was a private matter between those indi-
viduals and themselves. At one of the meetings they had with the eight residents,
Lisa Stipkovich from the Anaheim Housing Authority was present, along with an
assistant, and they took applications at that time for rental assistance. As
explained, the new Section 8 programs allowed rental assistance not only in
apartments, but also mobile homes. It had been approximately 10 years since the
owners of Trailerland had accepted permanent trailers in the park. The park
was only advertised in travel catalogues, and it was not a member of any of the
mobile home associations. Since there had been no mobile homes permitted in
the park for 10 years, it was plain that the park was definitely in an RV
category.
He concluded by emphasizing that they would like a resolution on the matter
from the Council today. They had submitted a letter to the Council prior to
the meeting when they were on the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and at
that time indicated they would bear whatever moving expenses were incurred.
Since that time, they had come to an amicable agreement with three residents of
the eight, and they further pledged to continue to try to work something out.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions relative to the two proposed restaurants
which were planned as part of the overall project, one being a dinner house and
the other a coffee shop. She expressed her concern over the request for waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
Mr. Jett referred to the rendering of the development which was posted on the
side wall of the Chamber and elaborated upon some of the details such as square
footage etc. Regarding the restaurants, parking conditions set forth were on
a worst case basis and at their most active time. Since most of the activity
for at least the dinner house would be occurring after 5:30 P.M., they had 400
spaces available which should be more than adequate. Activity would begin at
between 5:30 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. when the office building would be vacant.
Councilman Bay asked staff if there was a stipulation as to hours of operation
of the restaurant.
Miss Santalahti stated that they typically did not ask for that information On
the type of application under discussion because there was no reason to believe
that they would reasonably adhere to it. In the commercial recreation area, it
79-1152
City ~l!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Kish stated what they would like to see happen was that the park continue
to be a mobile home park for senior citizens, since there was such a lack of
affordable housing for seniors or to accommodate smaller homes.
Councilman Overholt asked if the seniors present today were members of any
organization.
Ms. Kish stated that they were members of a unique lifestyle, the mobile home
lifestyle, and they had come in support of theirfellow seniors and mobile home
owners. They were from Anaheim, Westminster, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach
and she organized their coming. Nine were residents from Trailerland Park.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned how $35,000 was going to change the emotional
duress suffered by old people in relocating as described by Ms. Kish.
Ms. Kish answered that the main worry was that they could not move their homes
into another park. Mr. Lacoz indicated he would be willing to meet with the
people again on an individual basis and would welcome her participation in those
meetings. Some of the people perhaps were reaching for "too much" and that a
more equitable figure could be arrived at that would be satisfactory to the
people and enable them to relocate, while enabling the developer to proceed.
The ultimate wish was that the very attractive tree lined housing community of
Trailerland Park remain a housing community for seniors.
Marion Staples, 1211 SOuth Harbor Boulevard, resident of Trailerland for 21
years, stated that.she hoped the Council would see the way to helping all of
them in their situation. Her trailer was lOxS0 and it was 20 years old.
Mayor Seymour asked if she or anybody had attempted to help her to look at some
of the trailers MS. Kish referred to that were in other parks, for instance, the
10x50 and larger size selling for $13,000 to $17,000, although at a much higher
rent, and, if so, did she find those unacceptable.
Mrs. Staples answered that she had not looked at those; the only thing she had
done was to look into finding a place to move her trailer.
The Mayor explained that he was familiar with Cherokee Mobile Home Park and the
quality of that park where it might be possible to find a mobile home for between
$10,000 and $17,000 with similar amenities to that of Mrs. Staples. Since there
were such mobile homes available within the City and if it was acceptable living,
he questioned why Mrs. Staples would not be willing to ask the property owner to
move her there and the owner could have her mobile home.
Mrs. Staples stated that they had to stick together.
Katherine Moore, Trailerland Park, Space 42, a 16-year resident, stated she was
present to protest, since they wanted to keep their older homes because they
could not buy new ones and pay higher rents on a limited income. They were
convenient to grocery stores, doctors, bus service and hospitals.
Mr. Don Brandon, Sunset Park, 6822 Westminster, stated that he sympathized with
the people at Trailerland. He felt that the Council did not seem to realize
that they were dealing with human beings.
79-1153
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour interjected and explained on behalf of the Council, and he felt
that Ms. Kish would agree, they had taken, and were in the process of taking
more, aggressive action to provide affordable housing and increase the supply
of mobile home parks than perhaps any city in the County. To say that the
Council was insensitive to human needs was unfair. They passed an ordinance
that would permit mobile home park subdivisions where senior citizens could
own their own lot, and took other positive actions which he elaborated upon
for Mr. Brandon.
Mr. James Martin, 1211 South Harbor, resident of Trailerland for 21 years,
stated that he had no transportation, except for the OCTD, and he had to be near
his work. He could not afford a great deal of rent and he wanted to keep the
park as it was at present or have it turned into a senior citizens park. He
had not looked at or tried to locate one of the mobile homes Ms. Kish indicated
was available because he had no transportation. He also confirmed upon further
questioning that he was one of the five people that would like to have $35,000
as a settlement, and that he did not have any discussions at all with the developers
as to relocating, although they did try to reach him by phone.
Mrs. Carrie Surburg, Trailerland Park, resident for 11 years, stated she was
present to protest the proposed land change of the park. If they were forced
to relocate, they would suffer an injury of some kind which none of them wanted
or needed. It was important that she remained fairly close to her doctor and
her children who transported her to and from the doctor. She requested that
they allow the park and her home to remain as is and to keep it for all senior
citizens.
Mr. Harold Butch Surburg, 1423 North Durant, Santa Ana, stated he was representing
his mother and was the elected spokesman of the eight residents. He was first
curious to know who the three people were who were no longer a part of the group.
As of last night, it was his understanding that one gentleman had sold out to
the development company; a gentlemen from the audience indicated he would give
that information during the rebuttal.
Mr. Surburg then read from a prepared statement, the highlights of which was
follows: They did send a letter to Lanikai Investment Company requesting that
they deal with them as a group and in lieu of being able to save their homes
and stop the development, they would be willing to settle for a cash relocation;
and relative to why they wanted $35,000 if they could find a home for $15,000, it
was not possible to put a value on the upheaval and uprooting that would occur.
He was not present to try to stop progress in Anaheim. He felt that Trailerland
in its natural environment with some rehabilitation could be as much of a
showpiece as Disneyland. He understood money was available through HUD to
accommodate mobile homes specifically for senior citizens under the Section $
Rental Assistance Program. An alternative should be offered to Triple H Land
Company (developers), why not offer to sell it to someone who would be willing
to fund such a program, that is a mobile home park for seniors. It was not the
number of people involved, but the principle.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned how they arrived at the $280,000 amount. It
sounded to her as a bit of blackmail, that they would not allow individuals to
deal with the developers whether they wanted to or not. Mr. Surburg used the
phrase "sold out" and that was what led her to the question.
79-1154
City Hall~ Anaheim, California.- COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
the Planning Commission in order to work out some amicable settlement on an
individual basis. They did have a couple of meetings with the people involved.
However, no one had yet heard their side. Mr. Surburg, in representing his
mother, said he would be representing residents and that they were to deal with
them (developers) only as a group. They indicated that they wanted to deal with
the residents individually and as he tried to go out to the park to talk to the
residents, he found his reception was not too welcome. He was simply saying that
they wanted to help and whereas the law mandated only one year's notice be given,
they additionally wanted to render assistance. The residents problem was not so
much in the fact that they had to move, but that there was a tremendous inequity
in the trailer industry, which he had discussed with Pat Kish, wherein people
with 10-foot trailers could not go into another park that might have a vacancy
because the space was purchased by a broker who would then only allow a new
trailer which must be bought from that person. In this particular case, the
people he spoke with, he had made deals with. The others said they only wanted
to deal with the letter which was signed by all eight of the parties involved
(September 19, 1979 - made a part of the record) requesting that one-quarter
million, or $280,000 in cash be paid in a lump sum to them. He emphasized
again that the law stated that they did not have to pay anything, and they viewed
the request from the residents as some type of extortion that was not reasonable
and a position of trying to take advantage of the situation. He reiterated they
had made deals with those people who would talk to them. They had taken care
of moving costs and helped in acquiring new locations and were more than happy
to do so. There were only five people left of the group who had not talked to
them. Three of those eight had stated their problem and, in turn, they worked
out a settlement with them. He then passed a copy of the letter to the Council.
Mr. Lacoz also confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the people they were
directed to deal with were Butch Surburg, the son of one of the tenants in the
park, who was chosen as the residents' spokesman, and Pat Kish with
Supervisor Clark's office for the area. She was trying to help people in
trailer parks who had problems.
There were no other persons who wished to speak in support of the project.
The following persons spoke in opposition for the below listed reasons: Mr. Tom
Carter, resident of Trailerland Park, Space 34, stated that he recognized the
right of every property owner to dispose of their property as they wished, but
he also recognized ti~e right of the people living in the park for many years.
it would be an uprooting of their lifestyle and their homes and they were going
to find the going very difficult in the future. In some cases, lives would be
shortened by such a move. As an alternative, he suggested that the Council
discuss the situation with HUD, recommending that the park be converted into a
senior citizens park. He felt that would be acceptable to both the owners who
had received the amount of money they wanted, and be of benefit to seniors who
wished to live there the remainder of their lives.
He then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had lived in the park for
three years and at the time he moved in, nothing was said about it being a
transient trailer park. He also confirmed for Councilman Roth that he was not
one of the eight residents previously discussed.
79-1155
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Pat Kish, a volunteer consultant to County Supervisor Ralph Clark, read
from a prepared document, the highlights of which were as follows: She first
explained the deterioration over the past few years of the housing situation
for the elderly, as well as the pyschological consequences involved; the need
for housing for low income senior citizens was acute and there were waiting lists
for government subsidized low cost housing facilities in Orange County; and as
well, application for rental assistance from low income and senior citizens
were no longer being accepted by the Orange County Housing Authority, the agency
in charge of rental assistance, due to funding limitations on the part of HIID.
Ms. Kish continued that she had made a survey of available mobile homes comparable
in size to those in Trailerland and each within Anaheim city limits. At Anaheim
Royale, the selling price of a 12-foot by 55-foot, 1965 trailer was $17,500;
at Cherokee, 12-foot by 55-foot, 1963, $15,000, another 10-foot by 54-foot, ~$15,500
and another 12-foot by 55-foot, $20,500. At Lincoln/Beach a 10-foot by 50-foot,
1960 trailer was selling for $13,000. Relocations for the aged have grave con-
sequences that far surpassed the anticipated rate of mortality. A more sympathetic
ear on the part of officials was desired. The fate of those people was left in
the hands of the Council and she hoped that human consideration would be on
their side by a united vote of the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Ms. Kish if she was aware that Trailerland was a
transient trailer park and not a mobile home park.
Ms. Kish stated she had received mixed comments on that. She had been told by
the management that it had been regarded as a mobile home park and she also
heard comments that it was originally a recreational park. She had not determined
what it was originally designed to be.
Ms. Kish then answered a line of questioning posed by Councilman Overholt as
follows: She was not a resident of Trailerland but of Orangetree Mobile Home
Park in Anaheim; she was aware of the letter sent to the developers by the
eight residents. When the issue arose, the residents of the park agreed and
took a vote that they would negotiate as a group and elected Butch Surburg as
spokesperson; that was explained to Mr. Jett at a meeting, the people wished
to act as a group and would he accommodate those wishes. Much to their surprise,
their request was disregarded and the developers attempted to communicate on
an individual basis which resulted in one of the elderly ladies being bedridden.
The letter directing them to contact either Mr. Surburg or herself was an effort
to eliminate any possible emotional duress on the part of the people. If Mr.
Surburg was unavailable, they were to contact her. The $35,000 each figure
was arrived at by the people involved, taking into consideration what it would
cost to relocate into a home of comparable size and age, as well as the incon-
venience involved. Further, in all of the parks that had available homes, the
rents were far in excess of what the people were now paying. Considering those
points, the residents agreed and felt that their request was a reasonable one.
Councilman Roth asked if Ms. Kish was doing battle for the money aspect or rec-
ommending that the Council deny the right to build an office building on the
property.
79-1156
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
15. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the subject application was requested by Mayor Seymour at the
Council meeting of September 18, 1979 and public hearing scheduled this date.
It was determined that there were approximately 75 people in the Chamber audience
who were present regarding the subject item.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was greatly concerned regarding the left-
turn access to the proposed project going south on Harbor, and it was on that
basis that she was going to ask for a public hearing as well.
Miss Santalahti explained that the Traffic Engineer did recommend against any
left-turn access off Harbor Boulevard because of the existing circumstances.
The developer proposed an alternate allowing one left-turn access and if the
Council was willing, the developer was willing to accept that solution as
being a reasonable one. The proposal and the conditions as approved by the
Commission would require that raised medians be constructed in Ball Road and
Harbor, prohibiting any left-turn access whatsoever except at that one point
which would effectively delete some existing left-turn traffic movements on
both streets. There would be a left-turn on Ball Road heading westerly and
the left-turn entrance would be to the south of that particular lane. She
also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the left-turn entrance would be
directly off Harbor into the project.
Mayor Seymour then explained the procedure to be used for the public hearing;
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that two letters of opposition had been
received, one from Marion Staples and one from Mr. and Mrs. Farmer.
'Fhe Mayor then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and
desirous of being heard~
Mr. Norm Lacoz, 655 i)~ep Valley Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, one of the partners
in the development, ~d Mr. Lawrence Jett, President, Lanikai Management Corporation,
1090 North Western, S~ite 204, San Pedro were present.
Councilwoman Ka>~wood expressed her concern with the proposal for a left-turn
lane going north on ~i~rl~or before approaching Ball Road.
Mr. Jett explained that they had two choices relative to access, providing a
lefthand turn into th~ property on Harbor or off Ball Road. Because of the
northbound offramp ont~, the Santa Aha Freeway from Ball Road, that was the
less feasible of the two. They had worked with the Traffic Engineer's office,
as well as Caltrans, in trying to determine the best location to give some access
to the property northbo~nd on Harbor Boulevard. After discussing other alter-
natives, they brought the lefthand turn access into the property midway between
79-1157
Ci.ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
the freeway and Ball Road. With traffic signal control at the existing north-
bound off-ramp onto Harbor from the Santa Ana Freeway and with some traffic
control via the signal at Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road, it was their under-
standing, according to their traffic consultants, Berryman & Stephenson, as well
as Caltrans, that they could attain the proper safety into the property and
still keep traffic moving in a reasonable manner.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted the problem as she viewed it, with almost no traffic
presently going in and out of the existing parcel, that traffic backed up on
Harbor Boulevard from the off-ramp of the Freeway by those vehicles wanting to
mmke a left turn at Ball Road.
Mr. Jett explained that some of the problems now occurring on both Harbor Boul-
evard and Ball Road were due to the fact there were 19 potential left hand turns
that could be made at present. In order to reduce those potential turns, the
various traffic departments and their traffic consultants proposed raised
medians, thereby reducing the figure from 19 to 2. Through dedication, they
were also widening both Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard at the intersection,
thus providing the opportunity for better design relative to traffic movements
making a potentially hazardous situation safer.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated they had worked with the developer in order
to incorporate as many mitigating measures to traffic motions as possible at
the intersection. One was the provision for an additional right turn ~¥pass
lane from eastbound Ball Road to travel southerly along Harbor Boulevard. Of
greatest concern were the southerly motions on Harbor Boulevard, and assuming
it was desirable to develop that corner, restricting access to "right turns
only" would create "U" turns at the critical intersection of Ball Road and
Harbor Boulevard. In lieu of that, they felt it best to permit a protective
"left-turn ingress only" between the bridge and the intersection protected by
raised medians and eliminate existing left-turns, except at the Freeway off-
ramp which was signalized.
Mr. Singer then spoke to the stacking traffic occurring northbound on Harbor
Boulevard exiting from the Santa Aha Freeway, waiting to make a left-turn
onto Ball Road. There would be no reduction in the stacking. The new lane
was going to occur from the widening that was going to take place northerly
of the stacking lane that was there at present, which had about 9 spaces.
He then confirmed for the Mayor that the current 9 spaces would remain and as
a result of dedication, another left-turn lane only into the project would
provide 5 stacking spaces.
Councilman Roth stated his question revolved around why all of the people were
present in the Council Chamber, that being what the developers were intending
to do to solve the housing problem for the tenants who had been living in the
mobile home park for many years.
Mr. Lacoz stated when they started the project, they were fully aware that
there were at least eight permanent residents in the park according to the
owner. It was not typically a trailer park, but a recreational vehicle park;
however, there had been people living there 20 years or longer. The law
required that they give people living in trailer parks one year's notice before
they would have to leave and they were fully prepared to do that. Their plan
was to try and contact those people once they received their zoning through
79-1158
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth explained that Ian Whyte, a mortgage banker, was heading up the
Orange County support and he (Roth) wanted to have a resolution signed by the
Mayor of Anaheim and copies of any other resolutions from any or all of the 26
Orange County cities. He then asked the City Clerk, if the resolution passed,
and once the Mayor had signed it, to contact Mr. Whyte and have him pick it
up because time was of the essence. He also stated if there was any way to get
any other cities to cooperate, Mr. Whyte would be most appreciative. Council-
man Roth then elaborated on the essence of Proposition 2 and urged the Council's
support.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-585 duly passed and adopted.
153: PSE TRAINING PROGRAM: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum
dated October 12, 1979 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae, (on file in
the City Clerk's office), giving the additional information requested by the
Council on the subject program at the meeting of October 2, 1979 (see minutes that
date). He also noted that Mr. Bill Hepburn, CETA Services Manager, was present
to further address the program if the Council desired.
Mayor Seymour stated that he was totally satisfied now that, in fact, they would
not be running a training facility, but would be getting meaningful work done by
the people in the program for the City's taxpayers. Further, with the assurance
provided by the subject report that the City Manager was going to provide the
Council with a monthly z'eport listing positions, he was further satisified that
proper checks and balances had been amended into the program.
On motion by Coun~ilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the PSE
Training Program proct~d~re recommended to the Council October 2, 1979, clarified
in report from staff dated October 12, 1979, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By genera] ~,~n~ent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:10 P.M.)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMi~~ NO. 2015 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Triple
H. Land Company, to pe~it a commercial office complex on CR zoned property
located at 1211 South H~rbor Boulevard with a waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-175 declared that
the subject project be ~xempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be ~o significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact due to this project, and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2015,
subject to the followin~l conditions:
79-1159
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
1. That the onwer(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land the width of which shall be determined by the City Engineer along
Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Harbor
Boulevard and Ball Road including preparation of improvement plans and install-
ation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading
and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied
with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street
lighting facilities along Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road shall be installed as
required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with
specification on file in the Office of the Utilities Manager; and/or that a
bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy.
3. That a circulation plan showing left-hand turn access from Harbor Boulevard
only and including raised medians in both Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Traffic Engineer; and shall then be
constructed by the petitioner at the time this property is developed.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactor)
to the City Engineer.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
10. That the proposed office and restaurant complex shall comply with all
signing requirements of the CR Zone.
11. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 66-67-61, now pending.
12. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Variance No. 2434 and Conditional Use Permit Nos. 33 and 254 to
the Planning Department.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1,
2, 3, 4; provided, however, that raised medians shall be constructed in Ball Road
and Harbor Boulevard with one left turn access from Harbor Boulevard only.
14. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 11 and 12, 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.
79-1160
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Sierk answered that was difficult to do. He felt that some, upon examin-
ation, could live within what their business license called for when it was
issued to them. Some were the victims of the landlord who leased space to
them. The Council's decision was going to be a very difficult one.
In summation, Mr. Farano stated his understanding of the ordinance and the con-
sideration that had taken p]ace throughout, was that it was difficult to make a
hard and fast rule and the circumstances were different for everybody in that
area. Also, the recently adopted ordinance would give the Council the ability
to make a judgment on an individual basis rather than on an overall basis. That
was why he tried to show the Council that the businesses were not making the
industrial "dirty". They crea~ed less impact than anybody else; they were
compatible and in an area that was now almost 90% commercial use. They tried
to show that the nature ot all the businesses was such that the Council could
make a judgment on an individual basis and without offending the industrial
area at all. They did not want to offend and did not think they would be doing
so if the Council adopted a conditional use permit allowing the uses.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
bearing.
Councilman Roth stated that he supported the request for approval of the conditional
use permit the last time and would do so this time. He felt there were compatible
commercial uses in the industrial area, but they had to be dealt with on the
individual merit of the particular use. The freeways in the subject area were
crowded between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. when people were going to work in the
industrial area and thus, there would be no conflict since the businesses involved
were stipulating to an opening time of 10:00 a.m. As well, a lot of the activity
would be on Saturday and Sunday and, as pointed out by Mr. Farano, the area from
La Palma Avenue to the freeway contained 90% dual use and thus, he had no
problem in granting the subject request.
Councilman Bay first ~ecounted the history involved relating to the business
licenses of the five businesses involved and after so doing concluded that the
key lay in the fact ti~at the businesses were caught up in an open violation of
th~ zoning ordinance ~)f the City. He was not saying they were the only ones
because it had been going on all over the City, creating problems that led them
to the action that they had co take in order to clarify the ML zoning ordinance
rece~t]y passed. In order for the zoning to mean anything, it had to be
defined before it was enforced.
He had restated many times it was not his attempt to put people out of business.
The problem the present situation offered him in trying to look at the five
businesses was that they got "bunched" together because they came in as a single
hearing on Curtis Furniture and then suddenly it became a hearing on the five
businesses. He would v~-~ry much like to separate and deal with them separately,
but he was not certain he conld do so legally. On the other hand, if they sub-
mitted to a long-term conditional use permit on the businesses, then, in fact,
they would nullify what they had just spent months in developing, a firm policy
for the Northeast Industrial area and the whole new ML zoning ordinance. He,
therefore, proposed that they give the five businesses a certain period of time
79-1161
City Ha~l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
to conform to the law or conform to what they indicated on their business licenses
and that which was very clear to them at the time they received their business
licenses and started business. They had been into discussion and delays for
almost 6 months where it was clear that the decisions out of the Planning Com-
mission and the Council all through that period were denials of those conditional
use permits. Technically under the law, they could have been closed five months
ago when the decision was made by merely having them~stop their retail selling,
because it was against the law. He proposed that they set up a CUP with a very
limited period of time, 6 months at the most, to give the businesses an oppor-
tunity to do what their business license stated and what they stated they would
do when they acquired those licenses. He did not feel at this time that H & R
Johnson would have any problem meeting those ML zoning requirements as now
stated, but he did not know about the other companies. He felt they had 6 months
and in some cases a couple of years time in which to do so. He reiterated, he
was recommending for Council discussion that they set up additional CUPs for the
five businesses with the specific stipulation that they meet the intent and the
application that they executed relative to their own business license when they
received it, within 6 months.
Mayor Seymour stated that he voted for the new ordinance because he sensed the
community at large and specifically the Chamber was truly concerned with regaining
the integrity of the industrial area. He would have preferred alternative "B"
which provided for pockets at freeway off-ramps allowing developement of commer-
cial property. Although they had to do their best to follow through and implement
the ordinance, to mandate on any business a 6-month period of time in which they
could face the loss of their capital investment, government had gone too far.
He had a great deal of empathy with a small business person knowing what it was
like to put up capital to enter a business venture and for the monies the par-
ticular tenants had invested, in one case $250,000. He wanted to offer a counter-
proposal so as not to drive those businesses into bankruptcy. The leases averaged
approximately 4 years, and he presumed when the tenants entered into their leases
they had some idea of the capital investment they were going to be making and
negotiated a lease under which they thought they could recoup that capital invest-
ment at the end of the lease. He suggested that they extend the CUPs for four
years, but during that time the 100% retail activity could not go on as in the
past. It seemed to him it would be equitable and fair to grant a CUP for four
years for the uses involved and at the same time grant a review at the end of
the first year. By a review of the sales tax reports and the review of the
receipts, if after one year they had not achieved 50% wholesale, as compared
to 50% retail, their permit would be revoked at that time. If the review was
satisfactory, there would be a review at the end of the second year and if the
business had not shifted to 70% wholesale and 30% retail, their permit would be
revoked at that time. That was a way of phasing out the problem and not drive
the small business person bankrupt. He clarified he was offering the alternative:
grant the CUP for four years, review those businesses at the end of one year
to see that they achieved 50% retail and 50% wholesale and at the end of the
second year, 20% retail and 70% wholesale. In addition, require the 10:00 a.m.
opening, no banners, open to the public signs, or signs in the windows, thereby
permitting only what the City sign ordinance required.
79-1162
City Halls Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay then gave the length of time of the primary leases without options
as requested by Councilman Overholt: Curtis Furniture, 40 months; Mooney Carpets,
25 months; Orange County Furniture Gallery, 31 months; and Ron's Bars and Stools,
12 months.
Mayor Seymour thereupon stated that he was not set on four years, and it could
be cut back to three if the Council wished.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt they should come close to the primary terms
of the existing leases. He, too, believed that clean up of the area should be
done gradually so that businesses who had made an investment would not be de-
prived of amortizing that investment over a period of time. He also agreed
with Councilwoman Kaywood's earlier statement that when the business licenses
were issued, the tenants knew what they were supposed to be doing and did not
do so, and the Council was being generous in the possibility of allowing them
to recoup their investment. It might be that some of the lessees could comply,
whereas some of them probably could not, but at least they would have 36 months
to try.
Councilman Bay stated in regard to the Mayor's logic on return of investment,
they had been in business 2, 3, or 4 years already and, therefore, that time be
considered in the return on their investment and not imply that their investment
was starting right now, because it was not. Thus, if the Council was heading for
a period with stipulations into that period, they should consider a 2-year period
ior the whole operation with a 50% requirement at the end of one year and some-
thing near 75% or 80% in the two-year period, and also that the "open to the
public~' signs would come down, no banners, etc. He wanted to modify it to that
basis.
Mayor Seymour stated Three years was agreeable to him.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if the proposed action was taken with a
three-year period if they would establish a precedent as they started their
investigation already under way in the Northeast Industrial area relating to
the new ordinance. He wanted to know if they would have to allow every other
illegal business that was discovered in that area three years to change back
to something legal.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated the action would be a condition to the
particular CUP under discussion. Anything they did set a precedent to a certain
degree, but it would not make it necessary for every other business to be granted
such a condition. It would not be binding on the Council.
Councilman Bay continued to contend that to extend the time three years pros-
tituted what they did with the ML zoning ordinance and enforcement policy just
passed. He had two years of sympathy, but not three.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-597 for adoption granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1923, rescinding Resolution No. 79R-276, reversing the findings
of the City Planning Commission and subject to the following stipulations:
approved for a maximum period of three years; review at the end of one year,
79-1163
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
must conform to 50% wholesale, 50% retail; at the end of the second year, 70%
wholesale, 30% retail; 10:00 a.m. opening; no banners; no signs in windows, and
conformance to the sign ordinance for that area; and subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owners of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3896) difference between industrial and commercial use at
$150.00 per 1,000 square feet or fraction thereof prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2. That the proposed business shall comply with all signing requirements of the
ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 3.
4. That Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
5. That said business shall not be open prior to 10:00 a.m. of any day.
6. That no flags or banners shall be permitted on the premises.
7. That no window signs shall be permitted.
8. That said conditional use permit is granted for a maximum period of three (3)
years only; further provided that said permit will be reviewed at the end of the
first year of operation to establish that not less than fifty percent (50%) of
all sales were wholesale in nature; and will be further reviewed at the end of
the second year of operation to establish that not less than seventy percent (70%)
of all sales for said period were wholesale in nature.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-597: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he was opposed to the modification,
but he would still vote in support. He had supported the new ordinance, but believed
there was still provisions in that ordinance indicating that a CUP would remain
a viable instrument. If he was now to understand that there would be no more
CUPs granted in the industrial area, that was not the ordinance he supported.
Mayor Seymour explained that as far as his position now and in the future, he
would be opposed to a CUP that offered 100% retail sales service unless that
100% were oriented to a large degree toward the industrial sector as being
consumers of whatever they were selling retail. He was not opposed to approving
CUPs in the future, but did favor trying to keep it consistent.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she could not support the resolution on the same
basis she voted "no" five months ago. She felt there had been a flagrant
disregard for site development standards in that area. Three years would be reward-
ing them by legalizing an illegal use, and it would not be to the City's benefit.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
79-1164
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-597 duly passed and adopted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by La Palma Business Park, to permit a gymnastic academy on ML zoned
property located at 1015 North Armando Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-162, declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2006.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by La Palma Business Park,
and public hearing scheduled and continued from October 9, 1979 to this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. She then confirmed for Councilman Roth that the
hours of operation were Monday through Thursday and Saturdays 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Councilman Bay noted that Miss Santalahti stated that the ML zone permitted a
gymnastic academy with approval of a CUP. He asked her to read where that was
stated in the new ML zoning recently approved.
Miss Santalahti explained that she did not have the ordinance on hand, but it was
based on the Planning Commission report of August 13, 1979. The amendments still
allowed the Council or the Planning Commission to make a determination that certain
uses might still be appropriate. However, the amendment specifically stated that
retail sales to the general public were not permitted.
f]oL~ncilman Bay stated to his recollection of the amended ML zoning ordinance, in
the Northeast Industrial area, it did not even mention gymnastic academies; Miss
Santa]ahti stated she believed that was correct and that the specific subsection
was deleted.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Tommy Mason, residence, 969 Tyler Lane, Lake Arrowhead, business, 223 South
"G" Street, San Bernardino, stated that the Planning Commission denial was based
on five assumptions (see letter dated October 1, 1979 from Cathy Rigby Mason -
made a part of the record) and they disagreed with all but one for the following
reasons: the influx of children would not be incompatible with the surrounding
land uses and the effect would be inconsequential. A Carl's Jr. was located at
79-1165
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard in the vicinity and more children frequented
that establishment in one day than the number of children who would attend the
Cathy Rigby Gymnastics Academy (CRGA) in one month. As well, other uses in the
surrounding area were a nursery school, a public storage facility, furniture
mall, miniature golf course and a go-cart race track.
The existence of a gymnastics academy would also be inconsequential relative to
vehicular traffic and non-existent in terms of pedestrian traffic. The industrial
area would not be aware of what was going on at the academy. There would be no
pollutants, neon signs or crowds, and the activity would begin at approximately
4:00 p.m. when the industrial day was starting to draw to a close. He then
explained the space requirements needed to accommodate the apparatus necessary
for a gymnastics program which did not exist in a typically commercial area.
The assumption with which they most especially disagreed was that the academy,
if located at 1015 Armando Street, would be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. Mr. Mason stated it
appeared to be a standard "boiler plate" statement rather than a conclusion
based on fact, and they did not believe that the City Council could support that
premise.
They did agree with the finding of fact of the Planning Commission that the
academy did not provide a service to the surrounding industrial area. The
Planning Commission was correct at that time; therefore, in order to provide a
basis for reversing denial, the CRGA had taken the initiative to correct that
deficiency. The Council had undoubtably already received the letter regarding
the creation of a cardio-vascular fitness program in the Northeast Industrial
area at the academy for the exclusive use of the industrial employer and employees
during the morning and early afternoons. The facilities would be provided to
the North Orange County YMCA at no charge. He also referred to letter dated
October 10, 1979 from Mr. Ken Henderson, Physical Director, North Orange County
YMCA, confirming his enthusiastic support of the proposed program.
Upon further Council questioning, Mr. Mason relayed the following: classes
started at 4:00 p.m. and lasted until 6:00 p.m. The second class started at
6:30 p.m. continuing to 8:30 p.m., with the maximum number of students at one
time, 64; they had been looking for a facility for four months and up to this
point were unsuccessful in finding one to meet their unique requirements; it would
be economically infeasible for them to operate if they had to locate in a
commercial type building.
Councilman Overholt stated he was intrigued with the proposed cardio-vascular
fitness program, and he asked if the North Orange County YMCA was entitled to
operate outside of Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Placentia and Yorba Linda
as indicated on their stationery.
Mr. Mason answered, to his knowledge they must be, or they would not have Committed
to the program. The arrangement had not been drawn up into a contract, but they
would be glad to reduce it to that.
79-1166
City ~.all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt emphasized that it would be an important factor when casting
his vote. He felt if there was similar program at the Anaheim Family YMCA, that
there could be some jurisdictional problems between those two groups, and he
would be interested in receiving an answer on that aspect. If they were saying
that the cardio-vascular fitness program was going to be provided and the Council
approved their request, he wanted to be certain of that service, otherwise he
would have some second thoughts about the project.
Mayor Seymour clarified what Councilman Overholt was saying, if the Council were
to approve the CUP, was Mr. Mason prepared to so stipulate and make any approval
subject to a firm contract being furnished that would insure that type of service
would actually take place; Mr. Mason answered "yes".
Mrs. Cathy Rigby b~son stated that they would also be offering another service,
presently in the planning stages, that of awarding scholarships to the academy
to low income families. She did not know at this.time whether that would work
through the YMCA or the Recreation Department.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mrs. Mason if she would be spending time at the facility
overseeing the operation.
Mrs. Mason answered "yes" and the main reason they had not started a wide spread
program was due to the fact that they were concerned about quality and had taken
a great deal of time to find the coaches, etc. She attended the award ceremonies
and set up the programs along with their present coach.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present in opposition.
Mr. Larry Sierk, Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce, speaking for
the Chamber stated they were opposed and again reminded the Council of the recent
ordinance passed relative to ML zoning. Foremost, in this situation when talking
about safety of the citizens of Anaheim, they had to consider the safety of the
children attending the academy. He questioned if the parents and the academy
were willing to accept the risk of an industrial accident. Agricultural land
was located next door to the property that could be developed into a type of
plant that would create a noise element, a possible blowout of a plastics cooker,
or something of that nature that would create a nauseous odor. Subsequently,
parents would be up £n arms and would oppose the operation of the academy and
their children going into that area. In discussion they had with Mr. Donaldson
and Mr. Mason, they expressed that they wanted to have the academy in Anaheim
for the training of the 1984 Olympic competitors, but they questioned the
intrusion into the industrial area and again, the safety factor. He had suggested
that they look into the Magnolia-La Palma area. Relative to the cardio-vascular
fitness program, he wondered how many employees would be able to take advantage
of that service if they were working and felt that the program would perhaps work
better in the evenings. He reiterated he was expressing the Chamber's point of
view and asked the Council to uphold the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a potential buyer or developer for the
adjacent agricultural land at present.
79-1167
City Hal~.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16,. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Sierk answered that he did not know, or if it was even on the market. There
was possibly a developer that would build to specs that could build for the
academy in a suitable area in Anaheim.
Mr. Mason stated that they shared the Chamber's concern. They had been in
Mission Viejo for three years and no problems had arisen. The academy would
feel the brunt of the parents concern before the Chamber, because they would
react by withdrawing their children. It was suggested that they go to Yorba
Regional Park, but it was his understanding that the County still owned the
property and Anaheim did not have any control over it. Another park was sug-
gested farther north, but development was three to four years in the future.
Mr. Mason then referred to the two sets of petitions already submitted, one of
which came from the Geronimo Industrial Park in Mission Viejo, confirming the use
of the land by the CRGA and the fact that there had been no conflict between
the present industrial tenants and the academy. Petitions were also submitted
from surrounding tenants in the La Palma Business Park offering no opposition
to their occupancy of that area.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it would be a hardship if the CUP were approved for
a three-year period, to be reviewed at that time.
Mr. Mason answered that he would be interested to see what the conditions of
renewal would be at that point. At the end of the three years, if there was a
detrimental effect on them, they would be anxious to move as well. They were
presently contemplating a three-year lease with a five-year option and, therefore,
three years would not present a problem.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth stated in the past he talked about retaining the integrity of
the industrial area. Now he did not feel the property involved had any integrity,
but that integrity derived from the people. Seventeen businesses had written
letters in support of the academy as well as letters received from businesses
in Mission Viejo where the academy had been established for three years. There
was one letter in opposition and the opposition of the Chamber as expressed by
Mr. Sierk. With all due respect for the Chamber and the new ordinance, he felt
it was time to look at the people and the children and the worthwhileness of the
program. He stated that the Council should support the CUP.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Roth. The conjecture of what might
be developed on the vacant land was reaching far afield. Cathy Rigby, a living
legend in her own time, represented everything that was good, wholesome and
fine. For the Council to say she could not come into Anaheim, she (Kaywood)
would have a great deal of difficulty with that kind of decision. She wanted
to see the academy in the City and if they were encountering any difficulty in
the area, they would not want to stay there either.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On'motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that there would
be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to
the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates
the subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the
79-1168
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ .1979~ 1:30 P.M.
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal;
that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is therefore, exempt
from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-598 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 2006, reversing the findings of the Planning Commission, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 3.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Public Works Executive Director.
3. That the proposed gymnastics academy shall comply with all signing require-
ments of the ML (Industrial, Limited) zoning.
4. That Condition Nos. ! and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
5. That a cardio-vascular program, or some other form of physical exercise
program, shall be regularly provided and made available to the public, including
those persons working in the area.
6. That this conditional use permit is granted for a period of three (3) years
only, subject to review and consideration of an extension of time upon the
written request by petitioner, to determine whether said use has had a detri-
mental effect on the surrounding industrial area.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-598: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he vigorously seconded
the comments of Councilman Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood. Regrettably, he had
to make the decision on the basis of the use intended. He was convinced that
with the commitment to the cardio-vascular fitness program, they were bringing
into that industrial area a service that would truly compliment the area. In
his experience with the Anaheim "Y" program, participants were often excused
for the period during which they participated in the program, and it was often
done under a doctor's direction. If the program could be developed and developed
well, it would be a real serwice to that industrial community. He was, therefore,
wholeheartedly in support.
Councilman Bay cautioned the Council that about 3:00 p.m. daily, the incoming
second shift traffic started in the industrial area and at Rockwell, at about
3:30 p.m., 85% to 90% of their personnel was dismissed, causing La Palma Avenue
and Kraemer Boulevard to look like a large parking lot at that time. Mothers
bringing their children to the academy for the 4:00 p.m. class were going to
find many traffic problems. Also, if there were customers from the "flat land"
attending the academy and having to drive out to the Northeast Industrial area,
there would be a number of parents who would park in the area and wait the two
hours, rather than make the two trips, causing a subsequent parking problem.
79-1169
City Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Although he liked the idea of the cardio-vascular fitness program, he could
not vote in favor on the basis that he agreed with the Planning Commission
findings to the extent that he did not think that the subject area was the
place for the academy. He wanted to see it in Anaheim, but in a place closer
to a residential area such as a neighborhood shopping center. He felt there
would be problems in the industrial area.
Mayor Seymour stated that initially he was opposed to the proposal, and he would
vote against it today based upon the findings of the Planning Commission. How-
ever, the thing that convinced him to vote in favor was the willingness to have
the cardio-vascular fitness program for the industrial community. In his mind,
the ordinance they passed stated that certain types of uses were permitted if
first the use was making a contribution to the industrial community. He there-
fore asked Councilman Roth if he would accept in his resolution that it be
subject to, (1) the cardio-vascular fitness program or some other physical
exercise program in the facility and, (2) that a three-year review period also
be included to see how the situation was progressing and to insure that the
things Mr. Sierk and the Chamber talked about, were not coming true.
Councilman Roth accepted the two conditions as part of his resolution of approval
as articulated above.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-598 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Yolanda M. and Tom J. Talbot, to retain a furniture sales facility
on ML zoned property located at 618 East Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-171 declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 2009.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Willard R. Pool, attorney
for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
79-1170
C~itx..H~l_~l Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Harry Kniseley, L741 South Euclid, agent for the applicant, stated he would
forego his extensive notes and ask for the same resolution as granted in the
hearing on Frederic Sacher (Curtis Furniture), Conditional Use Permit No. 1923, and
reduce it to two years in order to gain Councilman Bay's vote. The subject
caso a~d that previously presented were about 98% similar.
Com~e~' "~ .... ~',~ ........ ~ -,uestioned why the windows of the business were continually
painte, .a~ ,,~ ~i~ signs since they had been cited by the Zoning Enforcement
Office~.
Coum '.i~:~'~an Roth asked Mr. Sierk if the Chamber was opposed in this case as well;
Mr~ ~ .:~ .~,~t. t,~day was the first they heard about it.
The ~i~ asks. : :~ ~vfone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition;
there being no ~.~spo~se, he closed the public hearing.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Knise]ey if be would be opposed to the additional require-
ments ?elative to signing, such as no banners, signs in the windows, etc; Mr.
Knis,~i "~a~,d th~ 'he same resolution as offered on Conditional Use Permit
No. ~ .... -,~,!d !~,. :~ptable.
ENV[RO',~.[ENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymou:~.. seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that there would
be ~ ~ign£ficant i~dividual or cumulative adverse envronmental impact due to the
appro;~! of this Nega~tve Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates
th~ s;~ ! ~;t p~'~p~rti: ~or general industrial land uses commensurate with the
propoz' ~ that ~>~ se, n?~itive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal;
~l'~;at t ? ]0. iti~ St,.~d¥ submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
indi:i~i~l cr c~mu!~:: ivo adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore,
exc~.p~ ~',~e:, tt~ ~-~_.l~:i ement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
C~, ~ :. ~',~ :~. ~:ved Resolution No. 79R-599 for adoption granting Conditional
U~ : ~. ~ . .~', ~. oversing the findings of the City Planning Commission and
s~}-~j~:c~ ro ehe~ ~ollo~'ing stipulations: approved for a maximum period of two
ye~ r~: ~..vi~,w ~,~ '.he ~'nd of one year, must conform to 50% wholesale, 50% retail;
a:' t:e ,~d ~ ~! ~ ~<. ~,nd year, 70% wholesale, 30% retail; 10:00 a.m. opening;
,~ ., : ~ ...... ~: ~ ~,'indows, in conformance to the sign ordinance for that
,. ~ ': : , ,' owing conditions:
t ~'niture sales facility shall comply with all signing
bject property shall pay the difference between the
traffic signal assessment fees (Ordinance No. 3896)
by the City Council, prior to the issuance of a
shall be developed substantially in accordance with
:~n file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
~...ity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
~,rmit is issued, or within a period of sixty (60) days
:},'chever occurs first, or such further time as the
grant.
79-1171
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
5. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
6. That said business shall not be open prior to 10:00 a.m. of any day.
7. That no flags or banners shall be permitted on the premises.
8. That no window signs shall be permitted.
9. That said conditional use permit is granted for a maximum period of two (2)
years; further provided that said permit shall be reviewed annually by the City
Council to guarantee that not less than fifty percent (50%) of all sales during
the first year of operation are wholesale in nature, and that not less than
seventy percent (70%) of all sales during the second year of operation are
wholesale in nature.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-599: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the original business
permit of October 1978 stated that they were going to be selling wholesale only
to apartment houses, motels and hotels with no retail sales whatsoever. Approx-
imately two months later, all the signs were up. It was a complete reversal and
they were saying they could not make it if they did not have retail sales.
Mayor Seymour stated that although he had offered the Resolution, he was not
certain that the Council was prepared to let both the same type of pattern on
the Southeast Industrial area as that of the Northeast. Data had to be developed
before they could make a decision. They would be "insane" to treat the inter-
section of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue as totally industrial
and therefore, until all the facts and studies were in, he was not going to
be casting the pattern in that area in concrete until he saw all the facts.
Councilman Bay stated that when they passed the now infamous change to the ML
ordinance, at that time they instructed staff to conduct a further study of the
Southeast Industrial area. They had not established a policy the same as he
hoped they had established in the Northeast Industrial area. In his opinion,
until the staff study was complete and the Council could get a feel for setting
a policy in the area, he, for one, would not go along with the Stadium area or some
areas along Katella Avenue being locked down to industrial. At present he was not
certain one way or another in this area. He would not vote for the conditional
use permit on the basis of setting a precedent before setting a policy and thus,
in this case, he would not vote for or against.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-599 duly passed and adopted.
79-1172
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST FOR. REHEARING ON RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 3097:
Request by Mrs. Joan Todd for a rehearing on Reclassification No. 79-80-2 and
Variance No. 3097, to construct an 8-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-2400
zoned property located on the southeast corner of Savanna Street and Marian
Way (granted September 18, 1979, Resolution Nos. 79R-528 and 529), was submitted.
Mrs. Joan Todd, 3620 Savanna Street, referred to a letter dated October 10, 1979
which she submitted to the City Clerk's office last Thursday requesting the
rehearing based on the fact that they found out that on the two pieces of
property that were sold toward the beginning of the street, the gentlemen had
no intention of developing for a period of at least two years. He had rented
out the first house and the second house was going to be rented as well. She
also spoke with the residents, and they agreed that they would not oppose a
two-story project if the Council could be convinced that they would prefer a
two-story condominium project as opposed to a two-story apartment project.
They felt by approving an apartment project, a checkerboard effect would be
created, and they wanted to see it conform to the area. Mrs. Duke indicated
she had no intention of selling her property and she wanted to stay since she
owned a business and needed to remain in the area. She was pleased they had
no intention of doing anything for two years.
Mayor Seymour stated there seemed to be a contradiction between Paragraph 3 and
Paragraph 4 of the October 10, 1979 letter (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Considering those paragraphs, it seemed to him the door was left open if a re-
hearing were granted to consider a one-story project once again.
Mrs. %odd answered "no". As she indicated, they had included the statements in
Paragraph 4 as a form of gaining an explanation from the Council. They all felt
it would be a step forward for everyone on the street if they could get condo-
miniums instead of apartments, but they did not understand the reasoning and
using that as a hardship.
MaTor Seymo~r asked staff if those same 8 units could suddenly be converted into
a condominium before they were built. Miss Santalahti answered that an apartment
zone allowed condominiums to be constructed. However, a tentative map would have
to come through for ~ondominiums, and they would notify the people accordingly
relative to a public hearing. It could be theoretically converted to a condo-
minium and comply w~th standards with some modifications to the building.
Ma/or Seymour stated he was willing to consider Mrs. Todd's request, but wanted
a week to get in touch with the proponent to try to understand more clearly if
he would object to condominiums and, if so, why; Mrs. Todd indicated she would
like to know also.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of
the request for a rehearing on the subject reclassification and variance was
continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed to 8:30 p.m. to the Canyon
High School Cafetorium, 220 South Imperial Highway, to consider the remaining
items on the agenda and General Plan Amendment No. 153, Bauer Ranch, and
General Plan Amendment No. 154, SAVI Ranch, (7:40 P.M.).
79-1173
city Ha~.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, at the
Canyon High School Cafetorium, all Council Members being present with the
exception of Councilman Seymour. (8:35 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
PROGRAM BUDGET MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour (arrived
8:45 P.M.)
The Council first continued with consideration of agenda items remaining from
the 1:30 p.m. portion of the Council meeting.
102: REQUEST TO KEEP FOUR DOGS AT 390 PERALTA HILLS DRIVE: Request by Mr. Kory
Kazarian, continued from October 2, 1979, was submitted.
City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that Mr. Kazarian had been in the Chamber audience
during the afternoon portion of the meeting, but had to leave and left a letter
stating:
"I am writing to inform you that I was in attendance today, but I am not able to
wait any longer. I have read and received a copy of the report of the Zoning
Division dated October 12, 1979. I do agree with the terms and I agree to
obtain the necessary signatures and refile for an "animal permit". If the
Council has any questions or comments, I would be happy to attend another
meeting."
Councilman Roth moved to approve the request for permission to keep four dogs
on the premises at 390 Peralta Hills Drive, subject to the Zoning Division's
recommendation. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Councilman Roth was
moving approval based on the recommendation of the Planning Department;
Councilman Roth confirmed that was correct and to which Mr. Kazarian was agreeing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
162: HOT AIR BALLOON RIDE - ADVERTISING PROMOTION FOR THE HAT.LOW~N FESTIVAL:
Mr. Terry W. Branson, Fullerton Savings and Loan Association, requesting the use
of a Hot Air Balloon Ride, October 26, 1979, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at 2310
East Lincoln Avenue, in conjunction with an advertising promotion for the
Halloween Festival, was submitted, together with a report by the Zoning Division.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the request for the use of the subject Hot Air
Balloon Ride on the requested date and time. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
79-1174
City H..all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ !979, !:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if a hold harmless agreement was
necessary; City Attorney Hopkins stated that the City had insurance and Anaheim
was also named as an additional insured by the Balloon company providing the
service, and he felt that was adequate.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour entered the Cafetorium. (8:45 P.M.)
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-43: Mr. Alfred D. Paino, requesting vehicular access
rights to property located at the northeasterly terminus of Hayward Street, as
required by a condition of approval under Reclassification No. 78-79-43, proposed
RS-7200 zoning, was submitted, together with a recommendation by the Zoning
Division that the rights be quitclaimed to Mr. Paino.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the requested
vehicular access rights were approved, as recommended. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Ka~vwood, seconded by Councilman
Roth, 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: ~e following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Marsha Lynn Andrews for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident on Nohl Ranch Road, 227 feet east of Old Bucket
Lane, caused by gravel in roadway, on or about June 15, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Teri Nadine Willis for vehicle damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of striking water meter cover left standing in water meter
opening in vertical position, on or about August 28, 1979.
c. Claim submitted bv Timothy B. Alario for vehicular damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of unmarked hole in pavement, Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via
Cortez, on or about S~,ptember 12, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Robert V. Ringleben for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of defective sidewalk condition, at or near 2130
w. Crescent Avenue, on or about August 21, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to facilities purportedly
sustained as a result of work being done for City of Anaheim on or about August 14,
1979.
f. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to equipment purportedly
sustained as a result of transformer blow-up in the vicinity of 105 through 319
Wakefield, on or about August 22, 1979.
79-1175
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
g. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to equipment purportedly
sustained as a result of transformer blow-up in the vicinity of 117 Wakefield,
on or about August 8, 1979.
h. Claim submitted by Larry R. Battest for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about
July 7, 1979.
i. Claim submitted by Casey Mondragon for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about
July 14, 1979.
j. Claim submitted by Luis F. Gonzalez for vehicular damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of City employee backing into claimant's vehicle on or about
August 9, 1979.
k. Claim submitted by,David Burris for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of actions by Anaheim Police at Anaheim Stadium, on or about July 14,
1979.
1. Claim submitted by Robert Waladis for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of actions by Anaheim Police at Anaheim Stadium, on or about July 14, 1979.
m. Claim submitted by Patricia Riley for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police during arrest of claimant
at 1796 W. Broadway, on or about June 26, 1979.
n. Claim submitted by American Desk Manufacturing Company for damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of interference by City and employees with the
business relationship between Continental Heller Corp. and American Desk Manu-
facturing Co. relative to seating subcontracted for Anaheim Stadium expansion,
on or about February 22, 1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application of Commuter Bus
Lines, Inc., for authority to extend its passenger stage commuter service from
Orange County to Downtown Los Angeles.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of September 19, 1979.
c. 114: City of Garden Grove, Resolution No. 5838-79, acknowledging the
existence of a newly created community health problem and authorizing immediate
steps to remedy the situation to prevent a disaster.
3. TIMKEN ROAD, EAST OF COYOTE LANE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1:
Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,250, was authorized in accordance with
the recommendations of the City Engineer, bringing the original contract price
to $21,626; Peter C. David Company, contractor. (Account No. 11-790-6325-0120)
79-1176
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 1.6, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
4. 108: APPLICATION - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application for a public dance to
be held November 18, 1979, 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., at Carpenters Hall, 608 West
Vermont Street, was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Police; Alice C. Salcido, Sociedad Progesista, applicant.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-600
through 79R-604, 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-600: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (R. Clayton
Mallard, et ux.; Joe Guest, et al.; R. G. Garland Corp.; R. G. Garland Corp.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-601: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY
LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF CERRITOS AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4130. (Steiny and Company)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-602: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COP~LETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY
LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ACACIA STREET, ANNA DRIVE AND LA PALMA AVENUE,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5110. (Steiny and Company, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-603: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 788
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 65R-958 NULL AND VOID.
179: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-604: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT TO CANCEL DECLARATION
OF RESTRICTIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, TOYS "R" US, INC. AND W.F. REALTY
CORPORATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
(southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Wilken Way)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-600 through 79R-604, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
79-1177
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held September 24, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019: Submitted by Robert Etchandy, et al, to
permit an office on ML zoned property located at 1040 - 1048 North Tustin Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-195, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2019, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2025: Submitted by M & D Realty, to permit on-
sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at
1245 South Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-196, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2025 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2034: Submitted by Robert and Esther J. Carlin,
to permit a self'service car wash on CG zoned property located at 1025 West
Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-197, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2034, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the subject location was the entrance to the
new redevelopment area and it appeared that small corner parcel was being over-
built.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt it would be an improvement to what was exist-
ing on the corner at present - a vacant gas station and an attractive nuisance
for high school students. The car wash being proposed was the same as that
located on La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard.
Councilman Roth also felt it was an improvement over the do-it-yourself used
car lot previously proposed for that corner.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern revolved around the fact that no time
limitation was placed on the use.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3111: Submitted by Janice K. and Mitchell M. Humphreys, to
construct a garage addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 219 Barryknoll
Street with a waiver of minimum landscaped front setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-194, granted
Variance No. 3111, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3112(Readvertised): Submitted by Raymond G. Spehar, Estelle H.
Spehar and Marcia Ann Halligan, to erect three wall signs on CL zoned property
located at 5710 East La Palma Avenue with code waivers of permitted signs in
the Scenic Corridor Zone Overlay, and permitted number, size and location of
wall signs.
79-1178
City Hall~ Anaheim~ C~lifprnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - 0ctober. 16, 1979~ 1:.30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-191, denied Variance
No. 3112, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
6. 170: REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10254): Submitted by
Classic Development Corporation, requesting the removal of 2 eucalyptus trees,
in order to establish a 15-lot subdivision on RS-7200 zoned property located
on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler Drive.
The City Planning Commission granted the request for removal of specimen trees,
and granted a negative declaration status.
7t RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-54 AND VARIANCE NO. 3005 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME: Submitted by Sandra L. Robinson, Lyndy Properties, Inc., requesting a
retroactive extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-54 and Variance
No. 3005, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 to construct a
24-unit apartment complex on property located at 119 South Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 77-78-54 and Variance No. 3005, to expire April 10, 1980.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1748 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Dale
Ellis, Weber Stationery, requesting a retroactive extension of time to Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1748, to permit retail sales on ML zoned property located
at 2511 West La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1748, to expire September 12, 19~1.
9. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10474 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted
by Anacal Engineering Company, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 10474, to establish an ll-lot, 10-unit subdivision on RS-HS-iO,000 zoned
property located on the west side of Villareal Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 10474, to expire January 31, 1981.
No action was taken by the Council on the foregoing items, therefore the actions
of the City Planning Commission became final.
ORDINANCE NO. 4065 THROUGH 4067: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4065
through 4067, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4065: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-4(2), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 4066: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(38), RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 4067: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-34, RS-7200)
79-1179
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
114: GENERAL MOTORS ENERGY ASSESSMENT MEETING: Councilman Bay requested per-
mission to leave the State for 90 days to attend the subject meeting heid in
Detroit, October 31 to November 2, 1979.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, permission to
leave the State was approved per Councilman Bay's request. MOTION CARRIED.
159: STREET SWEEPING PROGRAM: Councilman Bay stated that he wanted to broach
the problems associated with street sweeping and the related parking problems
in apartment areas throughout the City and on which he had received a number of
calls. He was aware that there were areas in the City where apartment houses
were located requiring on-street parking and such parking was mandatory. As
the street sweeping signs were installed covering both sides of those streets,
people had no place to park their cars and if they did not move them, they would
be issued a ticket. He was requesting that the Council agree on a staff study
to look at some alternatives to the problem which was becoming widespread in
those apartment areas with mandatory on-street parking. He suggested that
they look at the alternative of sweeping one side one day and the other side
the next day or not even sweeping in those areas at all. The input he was
receiving was heavy enough that the people were more upset over the parking
problem than they were for the need for sweeping the streets.
Mayor Seymour was not certain if he understood that Councilman Bay wanted a
full-blown study or recommendations. He, just as the rest of the Council, had
received many calls especially from apartment house neighborhoods built 18 or
20 years ago with insufficient parking standards. However, he preferred a
motion directing the City Manager to work in concept with the Public Works
Director to try and devise a variety of proposals to suit those neighborhoods
as Councilman Bay suggested.
City Manager William Talley pointed out that with Council's authorization, this
fiscal year they were installing the City-wide sweeping program in three phases,
and they were just about to begin phase two. They would not have the entire
City posted until early in the year. They had not hired all the people and
did not have all the vehicles delivered as yet. The problem they noted was the
one Councilman Bay reported; however, the signs posted now and the routes they
had laid out after nearly a year's work were what the program was being based
upon at present. If the Council at this point were to change, they would first
have to order new signs and also reroute much of the system that had not yet
been installed. A better course of action might be to live with the program
for six months until the entire City was installed, rather than start making a
major adjustment at this time.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not believe anyone was suggesting that major
changes be made. In his opinion from the calls he received, they were perhaps
talking about three or four neighborhoods at best and very concentrated neigh-
borhoods. To impose the program as structured on those neighborhoods would
not make the situation any better because no off-street parking was available.
Thus, some thought had to be given to the situation and they were not even
indicating what that thought might be. They were merely saying they did not
believe the program could be implemented City-wide in all areas without some
consideration for those few areas. He also confirmed for Mr. Talley that most
calls had come through the hotline so that he (Talley) could identify which
neighborhoods were involved.
79-1180
citT. Hall~ A.naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Manager was thus directed to work with the Executive Director of Public
Works to devise a variety of proposals to deal with those areas where on-street
parking was required relative to the Street Sweeping Program.
173: COALITION IN OPPOSITION TO AN AIRPORT IN CHINO HILLS: Mayor Seymour
referred to the letter that Council received from Dale Chaput, Councilman from
Yorba Linda, dated September 19, 1979, which he read in part (on file in the
City Clerk's office). The essence of the letter was to request Council repre-
sentation to serve on a coalition of North Orange County cities committee in
opposition to an airport in Chino Hills. He asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she
would be willing to serve on that committee since she was the one most intimately
familiar with SCAG and could serve the City best in that capacity.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Councilwoman
Kaywood was appointed to serve on the coalition of North Orange County cities
committee in opposition to an airport in Chino Hills. MOTION CARRIED.
173: MASTER PLAN - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT: Mayor Seymour referred to letter dated
October 4, 1979 from Larry Slagle (on file in the City Clerk's office), relative
to transportation as it pertained to the John Wayne Airport, requesting that a
letter be sent to the Airport Manager's office in support of the current level
of commercial activity at the airport. Anaheim was dependent upon that airport
and its current level of commercial traffic in regard to the City's commercial
recreation area to the degree that the City produced commercial activity at that
airport. He was looking for guidance from the Council and if it was their choice
that he direct such a letter supporting the current level of commercial activity,
he would do so, but in any case they should respond in some fashion.
Councilman Overholt asked if the letter suggested an expansion; the Mayor confirmed
that it did not do so and only referred to maintaining the current level only.
Councilman Overholt stated that as the Mayor was aware, he had a conflict and
although he would be a supporter of sustaining the current level of activity at
the airport, he would not be supportive of expansion.
The City Clerk was directed to prepare a letter to the Airport Manager's office
accordingly.
180: CITY EMPLOYEES ON DISABILITY RETIREMENT: The Mayor recalled he asked
the City Manager two or three months prior for a report from the Human Resources
Department relative to the number of City employees that had been disabled and
were on disability retirement, as well as the cost of that and in how many
instances the City had been successful in gaining some type of rehabilitation
of those people. He wanted to know the status of that report.
City Manager Talley stated he would submit the report in two weeks.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOS. 153 AND 154 AND EIR NOS. 229
AND 230: To consider two amendments: (1) to change the existing hillside estate
density residential designation to general commercial, to construct a regional shop-
ping center on property located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, southwest
of Weir Canyon Road, Bauer Ranch, (GPA 153) and; (2) alternate land uses of single-
79-1181
city Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
family residential, commercial (including a regional shopping center), office,
industrial, open space and any combination of these on property located north
of the Riverside Freeway on the east and west sides of Weir Canyon Road, SAVI
Ranch, (GPA 154).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 153 AND EIR NO. 229: The City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-198 recommended approval of Exhibit "A", General/
Commercial (regional shopping center/related commercial uses) to be implemented
by CL or CG zoning, consisting of 72 acres.
In addition, the City Planning Commission, having considered EIR No. 229 finds
that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and with City and State EIR guidelines; that draft EIR No. 229 identifies the
following potential significant impacts which the said project could have on
the environment: (a) extensive grading of the land will modify the topography,
change the drainage and eliminate or displace flora and fauna in the project area;
(b) considerable amounts of vehicular traffic will generate congestion, noise and
air pollution in the area; and (c) there will be an increase in the pollutant
level in the downstream groundwater recharge basins; that the project will have
a local and regional growth-inducing impact by stimulating residential and
commercial development in presently undeveloped areas; however, such environmental
impacts will be reduced by compliance with City codes, policies and procedures,
and the project will bring substantial social and economic benefits to the City
and its residents by providing employment, increased tax revenues and stimulating
the development of attractive residential facilities, and said economic and social
considerations make feasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the EIR; and, therefore, recommends that the City Council certify
Environmental Impact Report No. 229 and adopt a Statement of Overriding Consider-
ations.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 154 AND EIR NO. 230: The City Planning Commisison,
pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-199, recommended approval of Exhibit "B",
General/Commercial (CL), consisting of approximately 20 acres; Commercial,
Professional (CO) 56 acres; Medium Density Residential (RM-1200) 26 acres;
General Industrial (ML) 32 acres; General Open Space (OS) 138 acres; Water
Use, 5 acres.
In addition, the City Planning Commission, having considered EIR No. 230 finds
that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with
City and State EIR guidelines; that draft EIR No. 230 for the proposed develop-
ment of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation (SAVI) Ranch identifies the following
potential significant impacts which said project could have on the environment:
(a) there will be a disruption to the flora and fauna in the project area; (b)
there will be an increase in the pollutant level in the downstream groundwater
recharge basin; and (c) considerable amounts of vehicular traffic will generate
congestion, noise and air pollution in the area; that the project will cause the
conversion of open space to urban development and will have a local and regional
growth-inducing impact by stimulating residential and commercial development in
presently undeveloped areas; however, such environmental impacts will be reduced
compliance with City codes, plans, policies and procedures; the project will bring
substantial social and economic benefits to the City and its residents by pro-
viding employment, increased tax revenues and providing and/or stimulating the
79-1182
city Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
said economic and social considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and, therefore, recommends that
the City Council certify EIR No. 230 and adopt a statement of Overriding Consi-
derations.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, explained that in view of the
fact that much of the discussion on agenda items 33 and 34 (GPA 153 and EIR
No. 229 and GPA 154 and EIR No. 230) was relative to both hearings, the Planning
Department chose to consider the items together. He then briefed the Council
on the staff report dated September 24, 1979 covering General Plan Amendment
No. 153, Land Use Element (EIR No. 229) which was a property owner-initiated
amendment (Bauer Ranch) to change the current Hillside Estate Density Residential
designation to General Commercial. The proposal from the applicant designated
as Exhibit "A" would displace 90 dwelling units on the property. Staff antici-
pated that approval of either General Plan Amendments on either of the properties
to ultimately develop a regional shopping center would induce additional growth,
both commercial and residential, in the City of Anaheim, surrounding cities and
the County of Orange. It was also anticipated that it would provide for the
shopping needs of the surrounding area, general sales tax revenue and provide
job opportunities for City residents. Approval of Exhibit "A" was recommended
by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fick then briefed the Council on the portion of the staff report dated
September 24, 1979 covering General Plan Amendment No. 154, Land Use Element
(EIR No. 230) which was also a property owner-initiated amendment (SAVI Ranch)
to change the current Open-space designation to General Commercial (including
the regional shopping center), Commercial, Professional, General Industrial,
Medium-density Residential, and Open-space. It was also the intent of the
property owner to subsequently seek annexation and appropriate zoning to imple-
ment the proposed land uses. Mr. Fick then referred to the eight land use al-
ternatives, Exhibit "A" through "H", ,~hich were posted on the wall of tile multi-
purpose room, the details of which were outlined on pages 14-d through 14-i of
the staff report. Exhibit "A" represented the preferred applicant alternative
and Exhibits "B" and "C", the applicant alternatives to "A". Exhibit "D" -
General-Commercial (regional shopping center) was the preferred staff alternative
with Exhibits "E", "F", "G" and "H" staff alternatives to Exhibit "D". Approval
of Exhibit "B" was recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if staff's preferred alternative Exhibit "D" was for
a regional shopping center on either property; Mr. Fick answered "yes". The
proposal recognized the need for a regional shopping center in the Santa Aha
Canyon area and as designated on that Exhibit, touched both properties.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the SAVI property were chosen for the center,
how that would affect the Bauer Ranch proposal relative to cost benefits.
Mr. Fick answered that the applicants on the Bauer Ranch were currently preparing
their Fiscal Impact Report. It was anticipated to be completed in several weeks.
Thus, those figures were not yet available.
Mayor Seymour stated as he understood Councilwoman Kaywood's question, if the
regional center was developed on the SAVI property five years from now, and
the Bauer Ranch property developed into housing today, where would the money
come from to pay for the backbone and infra structure.
79-1183
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed the Mayor's understanding. It was the Council
who directed Bauer Ranch people to go back and enlarge their proposal to include
a regional shopping center (see minutes January 23, 1979).
Mr. Fick stated the direction by the Council was actually for the Bauer Ranch
people to study the alternative or feasibility of additional cormnercial develop-
ment in the Weir Canyon area, not specifically on the Bauer Ranch.
Councilwoman K~ywood then asked if he was saying the Bauer people could develop
the center on someone else's property?
Mr. Fick stated the proposals tonight entailed two separate regional shopping
centers. That alternative was intended to indicate development of only one
shopping center on either side.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Bruce Tripp, Kaufman & Broad Homes and the Bauer Ranch, stated when the
Council approved their project back in January and annexed them to the City,
they proceeded to implement the City's desires for a regional shopping center in
the Canyon area. There were only approximately 275 acres of 1200, but agreed
that development of the Bauer Ranch would not be a burden, and they still ad-
hered to that policy. Consequently, they entered into an agreement with a
regional shopping center developer, the Taubman Company, and had agreements to
purchase the potential site and to ultimately develop it. The Taubman Company
had a wide range of experience and expertise in the areas of planning, building
and developing shopping centers. They were financially sound and also had a great
deal of expertise in managing and running major shopping centers such as Fashion
Island on the Irvine Ranch. Representatives from Taubman were present this evening.
He continued that they were approved by the Planning Con~nission for a regional
shopping center and at that time agreed with the Commission's recommendations
for approval of the GPA and with the conditions imposed therein.
They respectfully requested the Council's approval of General Plan Amendment
No. 153 and certification of EIR No. 229.
He also had one further request of the Council - if they ultimately approved the
regional shopping center, the General Plan Amendment and zone changes, that the
Council introduce tonight the ordinance for first reading for all the commercial
property.
Mr. Richard Kughn, Vice President of Taubman, first confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that they had already had discussions with major department stores and
there was very keen interest. They had not yet made any deals but were not
concerned about being able to have the right kind of department stores in the
center, and they would do a fine job.
Councilman Roth asked the time schedule involved if apProval was granted on the
project.
79-1184
City .Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Kughn stated they anticipated moving immediately into the engineering phase,
working out deals with department stores, and working with the City to get all
necessary approvals. Hopefully, that would take place within the next 12 to 16
months. At that time, they would be in a position to proceed with the physical
construction.
Mr. John Bauer, Vice President, Phillips, Brandt & Reddick, representing SAVI,
first clarified that there was no relationship between his last name and the
Bauer Ranch. He also explained that their consulting team was present tonight.
SAVI was requesting the approval of two items, the first being the certification
of the SAVI EIR No. 230. That was necessary so that they could promptly submit
it to LAFCO for their review. Thirty days ago, they submitted a draft document
to LAFCO, and they found that minimum modifications would be necessary that would
allow SAVI to proceed with the annexation of the SAVI Ranch to the City including
adjacent property and two weigh stations.
The second item of approval was to amend the General Plan to include SAVI's
preferred plan, Plan "A" as illustrated. In general, it was 172 acres of
General Commercial, 19 acres of Residential and 86 acres of Open space. If
not deemed appropriate, then they requested approval of Plan "B" as recommended
by the Planning Commission on September 24, 1979, that both parcels be zoned
General Commercial. While SAVI's marketing and economics showed clearly a need
for 250 to 300 acres of regional support uses in the area, which both parcels
could satisfy, ~i.e., 191 from SAVI and 75 from the Bauer Ranch, only one regional
center was feasible. To avoid sacrificing quality of development on both parcels,
a potential by-product of such zoning, only one area should be zoned for regional
facilities. In addition, if Plan "A" was approved, they would work diligently
with those concerned groups and agencies in developing concepts for studies in
engineering for all off-site drains throughout the canyon. Further, if Plan
"A" was approved, they would add to the recommendations of the Planning Commission
that 2.5 acres be added to the net area recommended, to accommodate a police and
fire station facility. Upon conclusion of the presentation by SAVI and Kaufman
& Broad, they suggested that a commercial regional site be selected and that the
support uses as outlined and recommended by the Planning Commission be adopted
and applied to the remaining areas or parcel.
Mr. Bauer then referred the Council to a series of maps (6) displayed on the
Multipurpose Room stage, the first of which showed the basic characteristic
of the SAVI Ranch and the second showing the basic characteristic of utilities
and easements on the property. The location of the Ranch was ideal for lending
support to the existing residential development, both north and south of the Santa
Ana River, and for development presently planned within the area. Both plans,
"A" and "B", responded and were very sensitive to the open-space planned corridor
for the Santa Ana River and to the approved County Flood Plain Ordinances.
They had also been approved by the Federal Insurance Act. In Plan "A", they
were proposing some 80 plus acres of regional park and open space and in Plan
"B" a smaller amount with a recreational commercial use of that open space to
be a golf course located within the Flood Plain.
Also shown on the maps were two trail network systems connecting Yorba Park with
Featherly Park.
79-1185
City Hall.,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Unlike the Bauer Ranch proposal, they could not put a shopping center on that
property in 16 months. They felt that was virtually impossible although they
had the same kind of commitment as Bauer Ranch. As a matter of course, it
would take three to five years to accomplish and three years was very conser-
vative.
Plan "A" had the opportunity of being a gateway to two cities and two counties
and Anaheim could offer that opportunity. The site afforded the opportunity
to have balanced land uses, supportive land uses and also to make a regional
shopping center a more viable entity to the City. It was a superior site to
the site across the freeway from the point of ingress and egress as long as they
prepared the proper intersection of Weir Canyon Road and, it was not surrounded
by uses such as described in the Bauer Ranch proposal.
Mr. Bauer then concluded by repeating the two items for which they were requesting
approval as previously articulated.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the recommendation; there
was no response. He then asked to hear from those in opposition to either or
both proposals.
Mr. Frank D'Oro, representing Sea & Sage Audubon Society of Orange County, the
Environmental Coalition of Orange County, and the Friends of Vista del Rio,
property owners just south of the Riverside Freeway, stated they objected to
both of the planned developments to the extent that they were dependent upon
the southern extension of Weir Canyon Road through Weir Canyon. Specifically,
however, they were vehemently opposed to the Bauer Ranch development because
of the way it had been presented to the Council to this point and because of
the way it had been carried out especially the EIR report prepared for and in
conjunction with it. The Bauer Ranch proposal for the regional shopping center
should have been included within the original EIR which was part of the annex-
ation. From what he could see, there had been a total disregard in addressing
the project. There was no way he could be told that the shopping center was
not planned or was not conceptualized at the time of Santa Ana Cayon Annex-
ation No. 7, and the ultimate impact of the shopping center should have been
included in the EIR document that came down with that annexation. The original
annexation was a condition precedent to the regional shopping center. There
was no development in the area to support the shopping center, but when it was
constructed, the surrounding areas would induce development and thereby support
the shopping center. Thus, it looked like a supportive device for the Bauer
development. It represented a total disregard and disrespect for the citizens
of the community to not identify not only the ultimate impacts of the project,
but also the cumulative impacts and the scope of those impacts. Ail they were
asking was that the Bauer people disclose those impacts. He wanted to know how
they could approve something without first asking where the development would
take place, what the ultimate impacts were going to be and how far it was going
to go. It left the people he represented no choice but to litigate the EIR.
Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood Mr. D'Oro, they were concerned over the
southern extension of Weir Canyon and the EIRs and the process by which they
came together.
79-1186
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. D'Oro confirmed the Mayor's understanding and further stated that SAVI had
presented a proposal that identified where support would be coming from and
there was a natural boundary involved, but there was nothing on the Bauer Ranch
proposal. It was the Council's responsibility to ask them to disclose where
the shopping center would be located and how it would be supported.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Assocation and
Chairman of the Orange County Scenic Highway Advisory Board, expressed her concern
over the EIR and commented that she was amazed that it was prepared by Ultrasystems
when they had previously learned their fiscal impact model was so deficient. The
EIR did not address scenic highways in any form and Anaheim did have a scenic
highway, that being the Riverside Freeway. She then read a checklist of items
to be considered relative to scenic highways that might be affected by a project.
She also read an excerpt from page 27 of the EIR (EIR No. 229, draft Environ-
mental Impact Report, Bauer Ranch Regional Shopping Center), and she could not
believe it. "The development of the commercial center is not expected to sig-
nificantly increase water run-off into the Santa Ana River. Storm water generated
by the development of the commercial center is expected to increase 10% over
existing conditions." She also had a letter from the California Regional Water
Quality Board stating in part, "A review of the environmental analysis suggests
that the project is likely to have serious environmental adverse impacts. These
include incompatibility with the open space nature of the river area, inappro-
priate flow from development, and many other particulars which derived from these
faults." Also, the Santa Aha Canyon was considered scenic and the proposed Weir
Canyon was going to be scenic.
Mrs. Dinndorf concluded that approval of the project was endangering her life.
R~o things were necessary for survival, water and air. They were destroying
her air and damaging her source of water supply.
Mr. Larry Voyer, 6882 Eucalyptus Drive, further stated he was disturbed that
there were not more people present protesting a shopping center. He was not
a resident of Anaheim that would be greatly affected by the project because
he was in the City's Sphere of Influence. He did not see any creativity in
~he proposal, only that they wanted a guaranteed return on their money with
~o competition. He explained that they had been involved in the unsuccessful
incorporation of the City of Vista del Rio. Their intent was not to stop devel-
opment, but to put some sanity back into it. Anaheim had a lot of creativity
and now was their chance to again do something creative. Although he disagreed
with SAVI as well, he felt they were trying to be creative in the plan proposed.
However, the ultimate impact of the project would be, more traffic and more smog
and Santa Ana Canyon Road would have to be widened to six lanes which would
eliminate jogging, hiking and horseback riding on that road. He was concerned
that Kaufman & Broad did not tell anybody anything about the project and it
was not inconceivable to him that the Bauer Ranch would never build a home on
the property, but instead sell it.
Relative to the intent of the EIR, a residential development was being considered
when Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 7 occurred. The regional shopping center
was eventually going to be built. He felt it imperative for the developers to
sit down with the people in the community to let them know what the ultimate impacts
79-1187
city H.all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU. TES - October 16~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
were going to be and asked for input as to how to take care of horse trails,
hiking trails, etc. He felt it could be something very worthwhile if they
would spend the time to get some public input and do it right. Another six
months to a year of such input could assist them in creating something that
would be a legacy. He reiterated they were not there to stop development, but
to give public input.
Mr. Ken Smith, Manager of the Environmental Services Division of the Orange
County Environmental Management Agency, stated his was a neutral stand and
he wanted to address EIR No. 230, the SAVI Ranch property. The purpose was
to emphasize the County's concerns regarding the Santa Aha River. In their
review, they made several comments based on those concerns which had been in-
cluded in the addendum (addendum to EIR No. 230 - SAVI Ranch General Plan
Amendment - submitted October 11, 1979) and, with a few exceptions, were
adequately addressed. He then referred to page 7 of that document (made a
part of the record) which was in response to the status of the FP-1 zoning
that was being placed on the property. They were waiting for an answer from
the Department of Water Resources to evaluate the status of the suggested
changes in the zoning.
The second comment on the bottom of page 8, was in regard to flood dangers.
"It should be noted that the 1862 flood cited in the EMA comment occurred prior
to implementation of PRADO (1941) and cannot be viewed as reflecting the current
situation." He explained that in 1969, the capacity of PRADO reservoir was
reached and since that time, there had been a lot of urbanization in the water
shed of that dam. They were still concerned over the fact that that was only a
25- to 26-year storm and thus, their concerns remained.
Page 9 - they commented on the proposed lake, not necessarily to the lake itself,
because it was a nice amenity, but their concern was relative to the maintenance
of the lake and who would remove the siltation as the County was unable to do so.
His comments were offered for consideration only and they could more appropriately
be addressed in subsequent zone changes and development approvals.
No one else from the public wished to speak to the matter; thereupon the applicants
were given the opportunity to rebut.
Mr. Kughn first clarified that relative to the time frame, he did not indicate
it would be complete in 12 to 14 months, but during that time, they would initiate
their engineering work and work with the City on development plans whichwould
then put them in a posture to proceed with construction which would be about
two years thereafter.
Mr. Bruce Tripp then stated relative to Mr. Bauer's comments, the fact remained
from their standpoint (K&B) and the Bauer Ranch standpoint that they were annexed
to Anaheim, they had a major regional shopping center developer ready to go, and
they were experienced and ready to move forward. They had the ability, expertise
and willingness to proceed along the lines of a regional shopping center.
In response to Mr. D'Oro's comments on the EIR, their consultant was present
and ready to answer any questions on that issue.
79-1188
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
In response to Mr. Voyer, they had done a great deal of planning and had "gone
public". They approached the City and HACMAC even before the General Plan
in the Hill and Canyon area was approved. As well, the General Plan development
on the total Bauer Ranch was approved, and it had been through numerous public
hearings. Nothing had been haphazard; they had worked closely with the City
and the staff and had talked to Mr. Voyer and other people in the area and, as
he stated, had been through numerous public hearings in the approval process.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Tripp or one of the consultants to respond to the points
raised by Mr. D'Oro relative to his concern regarding the EIR and the southern
extension of Weir Canyon, which was also of interest to him (Seymour).
Mr. Tripp stated with regard to Weir Canyon, their consulting engineers were
present to speak to that. However, the southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road
was not in the Canyon, but westerly of Weir Canyon, and the Road was not impacting
Weir Canyon at all.
Mayor Seymour stated that he assumed Mr. D'Oro was referring to the southerly
extension of the road ultimately to connect with the San Diego Freeway.
Mr. Tripp stated the only specific plan they had done on Weir Canyon Road was
just through Bauer Ranch.
The Mayor then asked if the regional shopping center required southerly extension
of Weir Canyon Road to the San Diego Freeway, was it mandatory, and if it should
be extended to the freeway, would that preclude the development of the shopping
center?
Mr. Tripp stated he was not certain how far the extension would go, but when it
was ultimately extended southerly through Anaheim Hills, it would hopefully
help the regional shopping center since it would open up a major road.
Mr. Kughn stated that he believed the development of a regional shopping center
anywhere in that particular location was dependent upon the southerly extension.
It was an important item and he felt that the traffic reports indicated that as
well.
Mayor Seymour stated, relative to timing, he had been serving on NEOCCS and
~t was clear in his mind if that southerly extension should be approved, it
would be approximately 10 years before it was built. If the shopping center
required that road, he wanted to know how they would plan to be under construc-
tion in 14 months.
Mr. Kughn stated he was not aware of the timetables as it related to improvement
of roads. Ultimately, it would be necessary to properly handle the traffic and
move it through the various corridors. As to the timetable and funding of the
project, he had no idea what that was.
Mr. Frank Elfend, Ultrasystems Inc., 2400 Michelson Drive, Irvine, stated that
they prepared the draft EIR No. 229 (Bauer Ranch Regional Shopping Center.) He
then elaborated upon the work they had done on the project entailing a great deal
of documentation in addition to a report by Dames & Moore, in total, generating
79-1189
city Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
700 to 800 pages. The reports today had basically been GPA EIRs and in most
cases, they did not speak of specific impacts. At the request of Anaheim and
the applicant, they submitted a fairly detailed site plan for a General Plan
Amendment, and what was before them was a tentative conceptual layout of a
center. Thus, in terms of location, they provided a tentative layout, whereas
normally they would merely show a land use.
With regard to Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 7, they did not prepare that
report so they could not respond to that comment. At the time they prepared
their original EIR No. 216 (Bauer Ranch General Plan of development) they were
not aware that there was going to be a commercial center. That center was subse-
quently requested by the Council. With respect to the specific evaluation and
location of the shopping center, uses, etc., he repeated theirs was a General
Plan Amendment EIR and at this point in the process, they were not certain exactly
what the specific uses would be. In their report, in terms of mitigation measures,
they allowed the City of Anaheim decision makers to decide at a later date whether
or not they would like to have any additional information and if so, it could be
provided.
Relative to Mrs. Dinndorf's comments, the economic analysis was prepared by
Anaheim in assocation with Ultrasystems, rather than vice versa. Therefore, if
there were any questions on that aspect, they would have to be asked of City
staff.
With respect to the scenic highways, Mr. Elfend referred to page 87 of EIR No. 229
paragraph 3, where they did discuss scenic highways and they were also discussed i
the traffic circulation section of the report. On page 90 (3.9.2), Project Impact,
paragraph 2 stated, "As stated in the Environmental Setting Section, portions of
the site are visible from the Riverside Freeway, Santa Ana Canyon Road, and will
be visible from Weir Canyon Road. Ail three of these roadways are Scenic High-
ways. The development of the commercial center will impact the scenic qualities
of these roadways. The grading of the property will reduce the scenic qualities
of the site as a natural resource as viewed from surrounding roadways." Thus,
they had indicated the project would have an impact on the Scenic Highways.
Mr. Elfend then apologized for the typographical error contained in the report
relative to the statement that storm water generated by the development of the
commercial center was expected to increase 10%. He referenced page 11 of the Ad-
dendum to Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 229, Bauer Ranch Regional
Shopping Center, October 1979, which was a response to the City of Corona relative
to the issue. "Storm water runoff generated by the development of the commercial
center is expected to increase approximately 100% over existing conditions."
The percentage indicated on page 27 should have been 100% and not 10%. Thus,
they did speak to the water runoff issue as well.
Relative to Weir Canyon, the exact location of the roadway was uncertain. How-
ever, in the Addendum to EIR No. 216, they provided a conceptual alignment of
Weir Canyon Road. It was still being studied by the applicant, the City, and
the County of Orange. The basic question of the Weir Canyon Road alignment had
been discussed, and it was indicated that the roadway would not be within the
Canyon, which was a very critical habitat. The applicant was aware of that and
they had worked with the applicant in retaining it as a natural resource value.
79-1190
city Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Paul Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, Winscot Law & Greenspan, first explained
other projects on which they had worked emphasizing they were quite familiar with
what was going on in that area. The Master Plan of Anaheim, as well as the County
of Orange, did reflect the extension of Weir Canyon roughly down through the
Canyon into Irvine although the specific alignment had not been determined.
If the roadway did not develop, the residential development was not going to
occur because one produced the other. From a marketing standpoint, he could
not say that the residential development was not necessary to support the center,
but from a traffic capacity standpoint, every trip had two ends, and balanced land
use produced traffic volume. The proposed center would have the effect of
satisfying the need for regional shopping facilities at that location and, in
fact, might intercept trips off the Riverside Freeway which would be directed
to a more distant location. Of particular significance was the fact that with
Bauer Ranch, roughly 18% of the traffic directed to the center would originate
in the development itself.
Mayor Seymour reiterated that the important question was not yet answered. In
order to share the negative cash flow of property taxes needed to deliver services
and build infra structures, the regional shopping center was needed. In the
event that the center would not be developed unless Weir Canyon proceeded south-
erly to ultimately tie into the San Diego Freeway, then there was more to discuss
with K&B relative to the type of upfront money they were going to provide to
preclude a negative cash flow position. He knew that the extension to the San
Diego Freeway was not going to built within the next five to ten years.
Mr. Abner Nagar, Vice President, Taubman Company, stated relative to Weir Canyon
Road and their plan, the initial phase was for a three department store develop-
ment of the five projected department stores, or an area in excess of one million
square feet. In their agreement with K&B, the commitment of K&B was to extend
Weir Canyon to a point where there was a possibility of gaining another access
point to the shopping center - an additional access point in addition to the
access points from Santa Aha Canyon. They were comfortable with the traffic
generation at this phase without the extension of Weir Canyon, but he could not
say that they did not expect Weir Canyon Road to go on. He believed whenever
Weir Canyon Road happened, it would increase the volumes at the center and they
were not concerned about the extension to the 405 Freeway. There was another
major road not too far from the Bauer Ranch which they expected to be extended
along with development o£ the Ranch and the building of homes in the Bauer
Ranch. That was what they were looking for.
Mayor Seymour then asked if the southerly extension of Weir Canyon did not tie
~nto the San Diego Freeway, could they still count on the economic data provided.
Mr. Nagar stated that he did not prepare that data. He could only speak on
behalf of the Taubman Company and they were satisfied and felt they could im-
mediately undertake the development of the center, enter into agreements with
department stores and implement the first phase of that center which would
include three department stores at least.
City Manager Talley stated, to the extent that they would commit to an 800,000
square foot minimum development, those figures would hold.
79-1191
City .Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ .1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Nagar stated they intended to develop more than 800,000 square feet at the
outset, and thereupon presented some maps to the Council for their perusal which
also showed the roads and access points.
Mr. Don Bauer, Phillips, Brandt & Reddick, again offered the assistance of the
planning team for SAVI and the technical assistance of its engineers. Relative
to Weir Canyon, in the NEOCCS study, some 32,000 ADTs were proposed for that
particular segment south. However, presently there were proposals for reducing
that ADT by aligning with both Gypsum and/or Coal Canyon, thereby possibly
reducing the traffic requirements to the south. He understood the three basic
alignments which they were concerned about, and with some insight and some special
work, they could devise a more sensitve solution. Both of the projects would
increase the ADTs as proposed in NEOCCS by about 6,000 ADTs. Thus, there were
6,000 trips either from SAVI or the Bauer Ranch project. Relative to the time-
table of development, there was no question that between now and five years, that
only a minimum development could take place for retail services in relation to
existing occupants and population and their respective income, as outlined in
their market analysis. Their market study showed that five years from now, in
sync with proper negotiations and programs with various tenants, that two to
three major stores could be started. First, the Weir Canyon crossing had to
take place because it was a critical access point. They would not be able to
expand the center until the road went all the way through. Their plan responded
to the public needs as previously identified.
There were some questions about growth inducement, and balanced land use was
critical today in an urban environment. If within 10 to 15 minutes of one's home
there was a place to work, to attain services etc., traffic generated on freeways
could be cut in half. Locating the center in the location they proposed would
do just that for the existing and future community, thereby reducing traffic and
the pollutants per mile traveled by automobile per household. Those were the goals
and objectives they would try to achieve. Thus, while the Bauer Ranch EIR may
not have adequately addressed those issues, SAVI's EIR did so.
Relative to the question of siltation, they were offering a recreational lake
to handle disposal of that and the silt would be disposed of privately or in
conjunction with the Flood Control District.
In concluding, Mr. Bauer stated that the site was made, almost created, for the
kinds of uses they proposed. It was a mixture site and would create support for
the regional center and help secure its economic viability. The adjacent acreage
and support in spendable income from the office and co~nercial uses would add to
the economic viability, and it was a much more sensitive solution.
Dr. Glory Ludwick, 50% owner of the Douglas Ranch, clarified that in the discussion
on Weir Canyon Road, the EIRs on the shopping centers and traffic seemed to address
themselve just to development on the Douglas, Wallace and Bauer Ranches and perhaps
the eastern part of Anaheim Hills. Weir Canyon Road would extend for approximately
one-quarter of a mile up into the Canyon to meet Serrano and that would bring
traffic from all those areas. That was all of Weir Canyon Road that would be
developed in the near future. Thus, she did not know if they needed to be con-
cerned with how far into the southern part of the County it needed to go.
79-1192
city Hall~ An.aheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 .P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many residents of the area were present who were
not involved with the project; four residents were present.
Mayor Seymour asked staff what assurances they had in their conditions regarding
the Bauer Ranch proposal that either they would have those revenues as a result
of the development of a regional shopping center and/or cash upfront to insure
that what Mr. Tripp stated would actually happen, that it would not cost the
remaining taxpayers any money.
Mr. Fick answered that prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning any
portions of the Bauer Ranch, a public facilities element must be submitted by
the applicant for Council approval. That element would address capital expen-
ditures required by the City and operating expenses as well. That was a con-
dition of approval that the Council imposed and, therefore, would be a require-
ment prior to zoning being introduced. To clarify, the applicant requested
in the item following the General Plan Amendment, that the commercial areas be
exempted from that requirement until such time as a grading permit was authorized
or prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Mr. Talley explained that was probably the reason why both hearings were before
the Council today. When the Council considered the original development proposal
and requested K&B to come back with a plan that would show a positive economic
benefit, at that time they also began receiving contacts from the SAVI people,
and there were two sides to the story about which one was better and who could
develop first. Answering Councilwoman Kaywood's question, if the staff recommen-
dations were adopted, which in essence designated the general area, but would not
select one, there would be a horserace and whoever would come forward first, would
probably be the one where the siting would occur. If K&B brought in housing first
without a plan that the staff could recommend, they had represented to K&B that
they did not think the Council would approve it. Thus, at this time, following
staff recommendations they would allow both ownerships in and out of the City
to proceed at whatever pace they deemed best, knowing that whoever acquired
building permits first was going to have the regional center in their area.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Bauer stated that they withdrew their request for
Exhibit "D" indicating that they would prefer Exhibit "A" or "B".
Mr. Talley answered that was correct, but the difference was they were asking
the Council to choose and staff was recommending that they not do so.
Mr. Bauer clarified that they asked for one of two approvals - approval of Plan
"A" or "B", but not put them in a horserace. They felt after some study, it
was not appropriate to put that kind of competition at hand and that it could
be at the detriment of both projects.
Mr. Talley stated that staff was pointing out that if that did not occur and
Mr. Bauer's preferences were followed, in effect, in their opinion, the Council
would be holding off the residential development of K&B a similar amount of
time. They did not believe the Council from previous directives would allow
the residential development to go forward in 1980 and wait until 1985 for a
proposed plan.
79-1193
city Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated, on the other hand, if they were to take staff recommendation
"D", Mr. Bauer made it very clear the soonest "D" could be accomplished would be
three to five years. Thus, if it was going to take three to five years, they
would be better off to go with the Bauer people wanting to move ahead with res-
idential and look to SAVI to get into a horserace to develop the regional shop-
ping center.
Mr. Talley stated in his opinion what they would be doing under that set of cir-
cumstances was giving a green light to the K&B/Taubman development and telling
SAVI basically they should count on another plan.
Mayor Seymour stated if they chose to do that, it would not preclude them the
opportunity of requiring some type of definite ties to approval of specific
plans and development of housing without having a definite tie on the regional
shopping center and/or cash upfront to offset the negative cash flows.
Mr. Talley believed that just making that policy statement now, the Council
declared its intent.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the impact of Proposition 4 and the amount that
would be coming to the City with and without Proposition 4. The Council had
discussed supporting Proposition 4, and she had serious questions relative to its
consequences.
Mr. Ron Rothschild, Assistant Finance Director, explained that the impact of
Proposition 4 was not direct in the subject case. Included within AB 8 were
provisions which would take effect if Proposition 4 passed and indicated certain
sales tax revenues and property tax revenues exceeding a formula as stated
within the bill and that the State Controller would withhold other types of
State subvention, cigarette tax, and business inventory reimbursement which
would go into a capital development fund for school districts statewide.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, in other words, taking the money out of Anaheim;
Mr. Rothschild answered that was correct. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked how
the project would be benefiting Anaheim.
Mr. Talley answered that they believed at the end of five years, the City would
be able to absorb all that sales tax. There was a potential loss of up to 50%
at first and diminishing thereafter, but they were talking about positive cash
flows of roughly $500,000 to the City.
Mayor Se~nour stated, to understand the philosophy of the Council, the passage
of Proposition 13, which was a benefit to existing taxpayers, precluded future
opportunities for communities such as Anaheim to earn tax revenues used to
provide the backbone and infra structures to further develop the community
and provide housing. They were now faced with Proposition 4 which he was certain
the Council supported, but it posed another challenge of reduction of revenues
to the City. They were at a crossroad of wanting to provide some form of
housing for generations to come, while not burdening existing taxpayers. The
Council had gone on record that heretofore they were no longer going to ask
existing residents to pay for new development coming in. Rather, they were
79-1194
City Ha.!!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
going to look at the Canyon and Anaheim Hills area where it would require a
mixed development of property - some commercial, some industrial and those
types of positive tax feeders that would supply the revenues to support the
tax losers, i.e. residential development, and requiring the developer to put
cash upfront. That was how the Council reached the point where they considered
other types of uses at that intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Weir Canyon
and began to consider a regional shopping center. The SAVI property offered the
support amenity, speaking specifically of the jobs that would be created in their
proposal for industrial property and commercial office while at the same time
offering some housing that offered a mix to what Bauer Ranch was offering, thereby
providing additional housing so that people could live close to where they worked.
Thus, he was supportive of both plans. ~e one change he would ask Council to
consider on the SAVI plan was the consideration of Exhibit "B". He did not see
the need to create a horserace, but they should plan intelligently for this
particular area and suggested that intelligent planning along the lines Mr. Bauer
was talking about made a lot of sense for the area. What "B" offered over Exhibit
"A" was the increased acreage in open space and thus he asked that Council con-
sider "B" on the SAVI Ranch proposal, rather than "D" as proposed by staff, based
on information Bauer provided this evening.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 229 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report
No. 229 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the
State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such
information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Roth that Environmental Impact Report No. 229 is in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State
guidelines, and adopted a statement of overriding conditions, as recommended
by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-605 for adoption approving General
Plan Amendment No. 153, Exhibit "A", as recommended by the City Planning Commission
with all stipulations and conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-605: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI%~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 153,
EXHIBIT "A". (Bauer Ranch)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-605 duly passed and adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 230 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report
No. 230 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the
State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such
79-1195
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16.., 1.979, 1:30 P.M.
information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Overholt that Environmental Impact Report No. 230 is in
compliance with the California Environmenal Quality Act and City and State
guidelines, and adopted a statement of overriding conditions, as recommended
by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-606 for adoption approving General
Plan Amendment No. 154, Exhibit "B", as recommended by the City Planning Commission
with all stipulations and conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-606: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 154
EXHIBIT "B". (SAVI Ranch)
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated as she recalled it was
originally recommended for open space and thus she wanted to know what it would
do to the population density figures overall.
Mr. Fick explained that Exhibit "B" would add 26 medium density residential acres
which would yield approximately 700 additional dwelling units to the Canyon area
General Plan over what would have previously been considered.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with that insofar as the infra
structure they had been putting into the Canyon was based on that many less
units.
Mr. Fick reported that the Utilities Department reviewed the proposal as sub-
mitted and felt they could adequately handle the additional number of dwelling
units. Police and Fire had reviewed the proposals as well and indicated no
problem serving that area.
After further discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Fick for the pur-
pose of clarification, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was anything specific
in the plan such as actual apartments.
Mr. Fick answered "no"; it was a general plan amendment consideration only
merely to change or alter the land use mix. In order to implement the General
Plan designation, the applicant would be coming back with specific rezoning
proposals where that concern would be outlined.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were giving the heaviest density designation
so that it could be downgraded; Mr. Fick stated it was requested by the applicant,
but the RM-1200 would allow downgrading if so desired.
Mayor Seymour stated he supported that type of density. If the Council was serious
about increasing the supply of affordable housing and trying to get people to
live where they worked and shopped, it seemed clear that their thinking had to
change relative to all one-half acre residential property selling in excess of
$200,000, or one-acre selling in excess of three-quarters of a million dollars,
or single-family detached dwelling selling for an average of $140,000. The
only way he knew of in attempting to achieve their objectives was by increasing
the density with as much quality as possible.
79-1196
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bauer explained what they had in mind relative to residential was a density
of 18 to 25 units to the acre or somewhere between 522 to 725 units. As a matter
of course, they would have to identify what kind of socio-economic group of
people would desire to live in the "A" plan and/or the "B" plan. Based on
their studies, it appeared they were directing their efforts towards groups
of people--the young professional people and the senior person, and also the
corporate executive. They did not anticipate family units for families. The
project would have to be divided into both the high and low end of the socio-
economic groups--the high end multi-family housing ranging from $300,000 to
$400,000 and the low end, $40,000 to $70,000 for 500- to 800-square foot condo-
miniums. They could only deal with the two ends of the market.
Councilman Bay stated that he did not like any of the alternatives. Exhibit "F"
which talked about open space, general-industrial, general-commercial and some
medium density was the closest thing to looking like what he thought would be a
good support function for what they had already ruled on, which would be a mix
of industrial, some commercial and some residential. He was not convinced at
this point that medium density residential was the place where they should start
on the General Plan. When talking about a General Plan, they were supposed to be
talking generally, and he did not know how they could Jump to medium density, iow
or high residential from the beginning. He believed they should have more flex-
ibility when looking at the future planning of the support function on that
particular area.
Mayor Seymour stated it was a General Plan and there was nothing specific that
nailed it down. The whole thing was flexible because it was a General Plan
Amendment; Councilman Bay suggested if that was the case, then they should
proceed.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be certain that it was flexible and asked, if
they decided later on that they did not want any residential, could they go
to more industrial or pick a different Exhibit.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated if they chose an Exhibit, "B" for
example, the land uses were exhibited in the approximate region the Mayor had
mentioned.
The Mayor asked what would occur if they went, for instance, from 10% medium
density to 20% or if they went from 12% to 22% industrial - in other words,
changes and tradeoffs - would that follow the General Plan concept?
Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning staff would probably feel that there would
be that kind of flexibility, but the Council would be the ultimate authority.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted clear in the record that there was that
much flexibility and it would be up to the Council to make the determination and
give the final approval. In some cases, a change of 10% could mean a 100% var-
iation. She also felt as Councilman Bay, there was not one specific plan about
which she was particularly pleased.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
79 -1197
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 16~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-606 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that her "aye" vote included, "with flexibility."
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-64(Readvertised): To consider an
amendment to the Bauer Ranch general plan of development to include approximately
72 acres for a regional shopping center and amendments to conditions of approval
contained in Resolution No. 79R-50, property located southeast and southwest of
the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Weir Canyon Road.
Environmental Impact Report No. 229 was submitted in conjunction with General
Plan Amendment No. 153 and was previously certified.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition
relative to the proposed amendment; there being no response, he closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-607 for adoption amending Resolution
No. 79R-50 relating to Reclassification No. 77-78-64. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-607: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 79R-50 RELA-
TING TO ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 77-78-64.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-607 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4068 AND 4069: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4068 and
4069 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4068: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(1), CL and CG)
ORDINANCE NO. 4069: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(2), CL and CG)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:10 P.M.