1976/01/21?6 -49
~v'~na~ement Control Center~ 114 South Claudina~ Anaheim~ California
COUNCIL MIi~UTES - Januar~...21~ 1976~ 7:30 P.~.l.
The City Council of the City of P~lat~eim met in Adjourned Regular
Session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL :[Ei,~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour (arrived 7:50 P.M.), and
Tho~
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~.~EHBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
PRESENT: PLAiC~ING CO~ISSION HEMBERS: Herbst, Farano, King, Morley,
Johnson, Tolar and Barnes
PRESENT: CITY I~taJ~AGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTAI,]T CITY ~IA~AGER: William O. Talley
DEPUTY CITY ATTORi~EY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linde D. Roberts
PL~NING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTA~NT DIRECTOR, PLA~ING: Don l~cDaniel
ASSOCIATE PLANi~ER: William Young~
CObR~UNITY DEVELOPi~[ENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald
HOUSING DIRECTOR: Rosario ~,~ttessic1~
WATER SUPERINTENDEi~T: Larry Sears
SAi~ITATION INSPECTOR: Edwin P. ~eff
Chaimnan Farano called the Planning Commission to order. The work
session began at 7:30 p.m. although a quorum of the Council had not
been established.
:~. Rosario I~ttessich presented tile informational material related to
activities and expenditures planned for the second year Community Development
Block Grant Application. He reported that the City can expect to receive
~1,132,000 for the second year program. The items presented to Council and
Planning Cormnission Hembers were as follows: 1) list of eligible activities
and sample of ineligible activities; 2) Worln sheet to develop a proposed
second year budget; 3) Public improvement cost estimates; 4) Administrative
budget; 5) Citizen participation co~aponent budget and summary; 6) through 9)
Housing Assistance Plan Tables; 10) Proposed second year budgets; and 11)
Questionnaire summary (Exhibit Nos. 1 through 11 as listed above on file in the
Office of the City Clerk.)
The exhibits were reviewed with Council and City Planning Connnission
liembers and questions answered by ~.ir. Hat tess icl] . Prilaarily i,~r. I~ttessich
pointed out that during the second year it is proposed to expand the boundaries
of the target area by adding Area Nos. 2, 3, 4, which generally incorporate,
including Area No. 1, that portion of the City bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to
the west, Cypress Street to the south, the Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way
to tile east, and La Palina Avenue to the north, considering as a special study
project the Patt Street area just north of La Palma Avenue.
Tl~e first year goals and accomplishments in Target Area No. 1 were
reviewed. Specifically mentioned was the Building Code enforcement project, t~o
which one specialist in the Building Division has been assigned who handles
about 15 to 18 cases per month. The iiousing Repair Program has been initia~ed
and is ~aoving forward, although there is not as ~auch response as originally
anticipated. Survey of the sewer system in Target Area No. 1 has been con-
ducted.
Mr. Neff demonstrated for those present the sewer inspection device wi~ich
has enabled the Public Works Oepart::~ent to perforza sewer repair at $3.00 per
foot rather than the $10.00 to $15..)0 per foot for surface repair. It was
reported that this machine is on lease; that they l~ave spent approximately
$2,500 in Target Area No. 1 for the sewer survey by camera device.
Mr. William Young reported that in Target Area No. 1 the sewer lines were
installed circa 1911 and they had originally assumed the entire system would
have to be replaced; however with the use of the sewer survey camera, it has
been revealed that = ~' ·
30,. or more of the sewer lines can be repaired There has
been some difficulty with HUD regarding the repair of sewer lines since
Community Development Funds are intended primarily for new construction, but
negotiations are underway and it is anticipated that this program will be
continued.
76-50
b~nagement Control Center~ 114 South Claudi~a~ ~aheim~ California
COUNCIL MIN~ES..- J~nuar~...21~ 1976~ 7:30 P.H.
Councilman Seymour arrived at the meeting durii~5 the demonstration (7:50
P.?i.) and the b~ayor called the Council meeting to order, a quoru:,~ having been
es tablished.
During review of the Connaunity Development Block Grant Application, fir.
~ttessich advised that currently the City is paying part of the salary of the
Community Relations Specialist and one-ltalf of rite re~tt for ti~e Social Services
Center from Community Development Funds, and treat this is perhal~s not appro-
priate since the Center serves the entire City. Therefore t,~ey are proposi~tg
to drop these costs from the second year application and provide some other
type of Social Services function which would be more directly involved witit t~e
target areas. The possibility of a~ Youth Center was briefly discussed.
During the review :Ir. Mattessich pointed out tit&ti the citizen l~arcicipa-
tion component for the second year provides :for a budget of $30,000 to assist
the City in providing inforr, mtion and obtaining the necessary citizen input for
tt~e program. They propose to utilize $5,000 of these funds in ti~e Patt Street
area to provide for consultants' services in planning attd determining Cite needs
of that neighborhood.
Various methods for obtaining citizen input were mentioned including ti~e
use of the City Newsletter and development of a model home in the target areas.
i-~r. i'~ttessich reported that they have been disappointed to date by t]ta lack of
citizen participation but he feels that this is attributable to the fact that
they have not been out in the community working with the citizens regarding
this project during the previous year. llr. Hattessich reported that it is felt
a citizen participation specialist is required to provide a third party to help
develop a program for the Pact Street area.
The two budgets proposed (shown as Plan ~os. A and B on Exhibit ~o. 10)
for expenditure of the second year Comm~n~ity Development Block Grant Fund.~; were
reviewed and it was noted that on each of these t~e cost to improve ti~e water
system is the most expensive project, this being estimated at $283,0i)0 under
Plan No. A and $200,000 under Plan i~o. B. The results of a questionnaire
dealing with the priorities established by citizens for the pot~tial ex~endi-
cure of these funds were reviewed.
AC the conclusion of the presentation and review of the budgets and ot~er
exhibits, in response to questions from Members of the City Planning Commission
as to whether or not the main emphasis of the Co~,~nunity Development Program is
to provide low income housing, Mr. i¥[attessich explained that funds for con-
struction of low income housing are not available under Community Development,
but rather there is the ability for tl~e City to acquire and clear land for a
private developer. Mr. William Young pointed out that the City in its
decisions must recognize that there is no l~rovision for operation and
~mintenance costs of any facility or progra~ established with Co~maunity
Development Funds, that these on-going costs would have to be absorbed by the~
City itself.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that one of the most important objectives
to be accomplished with this program is to make visible improvements in titese
neighborhoods in order to increase the City's credibility with t~,ose residents;
that although he is aware that these projects require study and pianning, the
individual citizen believes only in i~provements which cam be seen such as new
alleys, sidewalks, street lights, etc. This same problem exists witi~ the
redevelopment project and will not improve until the citizens begin to sec so~,~c
change.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out tl~at it is not good pianni~g to improve
streets and alleys and then have to go back and tear them up to repair or
replace the water or sewer system; that the funda~ental public improvement such
as sewers and water lines should be the first objective, even though they are
not visible.
~r. William Young reported that he has ascertained from some of the
residents in these declining areas that one of the most co~mnon reactions they
have is a fear that if their property is i'~,~proved, their tax assessment will
increase and they will no longer be able to afford to live i~ t~at area.
76-51
P~na~ement Control Center~ 114 South Claudina~ Anaheir:l~ California
.COUNCIL. III. f{UTES - January .2..1} 1976} 7:30 P.H.
i-Ir. l'iurdoch pointed out that this reactioll is one of the [,ri~lc reasons
additional consultant work is recommended for the Pact Street area before a~y
]~ousing repair or neighborhood improvement progra~a is esgablished.
~.~. Mattessich advised that it is proposed in the second year application
that the problems in the Patt Street area be defined and a program drawn ut),
actual work to be begun until the third year. This would not preclude
possibility of the use of redevelopment funds in Pact Street bat it is felt
~ecessary to devote one year to the definition of the proble~'~ and possible
solutions. Citizen participation is necessary from that area in order to melee
basic land use decisions before a Community Development or Redevelopment
Prograra is initiated.
Councilman Seymour felt the priorities as establisi~ed from the
~tuestionnaire results were not reflected in either Plan l~os. A or b. It was
disclosed that this work sheet was prepared without benefit of the
questionnaire and it is subject to change following i~xput fro~.~ citizens,
Council and Planning Co,.-m.~ission l.ie~abers.
lir. Young and !-~yor Thom reported on their personal knowledge of tl~e dire
need for improvement of the water syste:~ in the target areas arid it was f~.~rther
noted that representatives fro:.~ the Water Division were presented to discuss
the priority of this item.
Councilman Seymour requested tl~at additional Police protection be
investigated as a potential possibility for inciusio:~ in t!~.e second year
program as this was mentioned several ti~,~es in tl~e questionnaire.
At the conclusion of discussion, Council::~an Sey~our reiterated that he
would like to see the money put "up front" in the second year's program to
increase the City's credibility.
It was suggested that with an adequate educational program, with constant
co~maunication between the City and tl~e area residents these sub-surface
i'~.~prove~uents can also be made better l~now~ and consequently more visible to the
public.
Co~aissioner Farano agreed with Councilman Seymour that if there is any
validity at all to the questionnaire, then the list of projects should reflect
the priorities indicated thereon by tile public.
cT
During informal discussion several Planning Cor~zmission questions reoard~no
the use of Community Development Funds and the application procedure were
c lar if led.
At the conclusion of discussion the t'lanning Co~nission felt that in order
to give any meaningful input, they would need time to read and analyze tile
informational materials submitted.
~ir. ~[attessich reported that public hearings have been scheduled on the
second year proposal for January 27, 1976 at 2:30 P.I!. and February 10, 1976 at
7:30 P.~{. The Planning Commissioners were invited to attend the first public
hearing as observers, and it was determined to conduct a second joint work
session on this subject between Council and City Plannin(~ Commission on
February 4, 1976 at 7;30 P.II. in the ~anagement Control Center.
ADJOURi4~ENT - CITY PL~J~qING COM~II$SION; Co~missioner lierbst moved to adjourn.
Commissioner Morley seconded the motion. MOTIO~ CARRIED. (9:30 P.l.i.)
AOJOUR~']~fEI;T - CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. Council liembers Pebley and Sneegas absent.
i[OTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9: 30 P. ~.
2YLONA ! 1. IIOUGARD, CI~f CL]£R~(
Deputy