1974/04/2574-419
Anaheim .Hills .Golf Course Clubhouse. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES-
April 25. 1974. 7:30 P.H.
The City Council and the City Planning Commission of the City
Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular Session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
FRESENT:
COUNCIL ~ERS: Kayvood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
COUNCIL I~I~ER: Sneeses
PLAHNYNG COJOSISSIONERS: Compton, Farano, Herbst, King, Horley and Gauer
PLANNI~ COI~ITSSIONKR: Johnson
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert H. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. l~atts
CITY CT.R~K: Alone M. Farrens
DIRECT(~ OF PUBLIC bTIIKS: Thornton E. Piersall
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
DIRECTCR OF PARKS & RECREATION: John C Collier
OFFICE EI~INEER: Jay Titus
DEPUTY CITY ATT(IINKY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
ASSISTANT DIRECTGR OF DEVELOPHEHT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
(Posted on the wall for use during this meeting were maps and
cherts prepared in conjunction vith General Plan Amendment
Nos. 123, 123A and 123B, end the Hill and Canyon General Plan
1965 and 1969.)
Mayor Thom called the adjourned regular Council meeting to order
7:30 P.M.
Chairman Cauer called the Planning Commission masting to order.
Mayor Thom announced that this adjourned regular sessionvas scheduled
on the motion and under the leadership of Councilman Seymour for the purpose of
clearing the air on several issues relative tot he Ap~hetm Hills Development and
he thereupon turned the Chairmanship of the meeting to Councilman Seymour.
Councilman Seymour related that the purpose of the meeting is to
openly discuss and thereby hopefully clarify the objectives of the City of
Anaheim, Planning Commission and City Council, the Anaheim Hills, Inc. orsani-
zetion and the property owners and concerned 'citizens. Further, Councilman
Seymour expressed the opinion that this meetin$ should not be approached with
the ides that it will serve to resolve all problems but rather to attempt to
smooth out a good percentage of the day to day difficulties encountered by the
individuals either governing, developing or living in Anaheim Hills.
Councilman Seymour described the protocol he wished to employ for the
evantn~ meeting as follows:
1. The Anaheim Hills, Inc. perspective.
2. Questions and discussions from property owners and interested
citizens.
3. Comments end/or questions from City Staff.
4. Comments end discussions from the Plenntn~ Commission.
5. Summtion - Comsats by the City Council.
Councilman Seymour advised that he ~ould like to place a time limit
aa this meettnS to conclude sa~e et 10:00 P.M. inasmuch es he felt nothin$
positive cOuld occur beyond that time and if one maetin~ is not sufficient for
discussion of all factors,, then additional such sessions will be scheduled.
THE MSiHKI~HILLS FB~SFKCTIV~: Mr. James Barisic, Vice President of Anaheim Hills,
Inc., prefaced his presentation with the stetement that la a helm Hills, Inc,,
is very happy that the new Council has requested this meeting and tha~ perhaps
it is long overdue.
ltr. Barisic advised that Anaheim Hills project planninS besanupon
acquisition of the Hohl Ranch, and is based primarily on the 1965 Hill and
CanyouGenerel Plan which was incorporated as approved in 1965 and to the 1969
General Plan. The Anaheim Hills parent companies decided ~hat this property
Mould create an excellent opportunity for a master planned community concept
and their planning basically relied heavily on the adopted general plan.
74-42O
Anahei~ Hills Golf Course Clubhouse, Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES -
April 25, 1974, 7:30 P,M.
Mr. Barisic emphasized that the general plan is a starting point in the
planning process and should not be construed as the end result. He advised that
this was the basis upon which the planners for Anaheim Hills developed General
Plan Amendment No. 123 which was the most massive amendment to the 1969 General
Plan and encompassed the entire Anaheim Hills project area of 4,289 acres (all of
which acreage was not within the City of Anaheim boundaries). In this General
Plan Amendment,Anaheim Hills proposed a maximum number of dwelling units which
was established at 15,000. He explained that it is always better in the planning
process to set a higher number of dwelling units than what will be actually developed
since these figures are used to determine size of roadways, school sites~ public
parks, storm drains, sewers, electrical and telephone services, etc.
The next step in the planning process was to take smaller areas and
perform more precise planning. He explained that the first such project was to
establish large estate type lots on the ridge line area approximately one mile
from the Anaheim Hills Golf Course Clubhouse, but this project ran into a number
of problems due to their being several governmental agencies involved as well as
difficulties in getting utilities to the site and was,therefore,postponed.
The next phase which occurred was General Plan Amendment No. 123A which
involved 674 acres and provided for more specific planning in terms of delineation
of R-1 and R-2 zones, etc. This General Plan Amendment referred to the total amount
of property actually inside the boundaries of the City of Anaheim. (Mr. Barisic
used the maps posted on the wall to indicate the location of the 674 acres under
discussion.) This General Plan Amendment called for various types of zoning and
established an overall total number of dwelling units at 3,667 for that acreage.
As detailed planning was accomplished and specific tract maps approved, the total
number of dwelling units actually constructed was reduced to 2,400. Mr. Barisic
noted that this reduction is typical and that the overall density of the entire
project has been similarly reduced by 30% when down to the specific approval of
tract maps and they feel this is indicative of the trend which will be consistant
throughout the development of the area.
Since the use of the PC zone was found to be an effective planning tool
it was decided to use it once again for Precise advanced planning and consequently
2~ months ago, General Plan Amendment No. 123B, which included another 244 acres
located at the intersection of Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl Ranch Road and another
area on the northeast section of the golf course. General Plan Amendment No. 123B
provides for 1,266 dwelling units. Again this is planning for an optimum number of
units whereas in reality it is expected a reduction of this number will be achieved.
Mr. Barisic stated that the net result of all of the specific planning
was to define uses for all of the property which was outside of the agricultural
preserve agreement but within the sphere of influence of the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Barisic explained in further detail that the agricultural preserve
agreement covered 2,351 of the 4,249 acres acquired by Anaheim Hills, Inc., and
pursuant to this agreement the use of that property was limited strictly for agri-
cultural purposes. However, as recently as six weeks ago, the County Board of
Supervisors took actton which cancelled the agricultural preserve agreement and
at the same time provided for preservation in perpetuity of approximately 954
acres of open space land. A significant portion of this 954 acres will be devoted
to riding and hiking trails. In addition, Anaheim Hills, Inc. has agreed to pre-
pare riding and hiking trails on the Edison easements.
Mr. Barisic stated that Anaheim Hills has, in addition to these 954
acres, signed an agreement for dedication of 81 acres of park land to the City
of Anaheim. The agreement was signed in January of 1973 and encompasses the
Planned Comunity Zone (674 acres and 244 acres). The City of Anaheim Code re-
quirement called for 24 acres of land, however, it was realized that in the Hill
and Canyon area it would make sense to have more park acreage. The net effect of
these arrangements, which include the 954 acres of open space pursuant to the
County agreement, the dedicated park sites, the opening of the Anaheim Hills
M~nicipal Golf Course and the Walnut Canyon Reservoir Site is that of the entire
4,249 acres, 30% will be retained as permanent public open space. He remarked
that this is usable land or will be when the trails systems are complete.
74-421
Anah-im Hills Go!f._Course .Club.hg~se, .Anaheim. California -. COUNCIL HINUTES -
.Pmril 25. 1974. 7:30 PJ.M.
Nr. Barisic pointed out that in terms of specific site planning in
Anaheim Hills, 60% or 2,540 of the total 4,249 acres has been specifically
defined for certain land uses. In conclusion, he stated that Anaheim Hills, Inc.
has invested or is co~itted to spend a considerable sum of money for improve-
meats to allow expansion; that the municipal entity does pay for some of these
necessary improvements but is ultimately reimbursed.
OUK__..STi_O~S AND. DLSCU_~10~S FR(Iti_Iq~OI.~i~I~..OWNI~I~_Altl}.]~NTERESTED.C~TIZENS AT ~GE:
~. Rober~ ~itz, ~7 Westridge Circle, inquired as to ~at ~he future plans
are for development of the area indicated on the map POSted as No. 7569, adja-
cent to the Westridge ~act. He noted that cond~iniums were planned for this
area bu~ that this has since been chan~ed.
Nr. Barisic replied that the Grant Company had proposed to build a
townhouse project on two areas Just east of the existin$ Westridse Tract
(Tract No. 7569). However, the Grant Company understands the concerns of the
property owners in Westridge and have since changed their plans and will develop
a single-family concept which is in fact an extension of the Westrtdge project.
}ir. A1Clauss, 6029 Prado, inquired as to whether Anaheim Hills, Inc.
has any involvement with the development and construction between the freeway
and Santa Aha Canyon Road which he described as "a mess".
Councilman Seymour answered that Anaheim Hills, Inc. does not own
nor are they developing that property, lB addition, he assured Hr. Clause
that when the City Council and City Planning Commission have completed dis-
cussions and resolved the situation relative to Anaheim Hills they would turn
their attention to other developing areas as the one brought up by Hr. Clause.
Hr. Rna Rude inquired about Tract No. 8115 located west of the West-
ridge development.
Mr. Barisic indicated the location of this tract, which will front
onto Nohl Ranch Road and that there is an approved tentative tract map for this
site and they hope to have a builder come in to construct 266 homes of equal
quality to the Westridge homes. The zoning is the same on this property R-H
10,000. Realistically, Hr. Barisic felt it would be 9 to 12 months prior to
construction on this tract.
Stewart Moss, 21463 Hohler Place, remarked that a lot of questions
have been asked as to why the estate type development was placed on the other
side of the project rather than on the north side between Anaheim Hills
boundaries and SantaAna Canyon Road.
Hr. Horst Schor, Anaheim Hills, Inc., reported that there is a very
distinct break in the topography between the Hohler Drive acreage estate lots
and the Anaheim Hills terrain and this did not lend itself because of the
ruuedness to this type of development. Also, much of this area is within
the Edison easement, and proposed open space preserve.
Mr. Schor further remarked that ultimately there will be between
800 to 900 acres of estates when the co~unity is completed, and these will
be developed in the Nobler Drive area, in the center area of the ranch and in
the. most westerly portion as well. In further answer to Mr. Moss he stated
that these 9 acres which he referred to are within the 4,200 acres.
Mr. Van litnamide, 134 Oransehill Lane, noted that the 1965 Hill and
Canyon General Plan is primarily shaded a light brown and inquired what density
this would sisnify and whether this density factor was chan~ed with the amend-
ment in 1969.
Zonin~ Supervisor Charles Roberts reported that in 1965, subsequent
to extensive analysis of the area and on the basis of this examination the
average density considered at that time was 2.7 overall and that the 1969
~nd~ent did not change the density factor.
Mr. Minamide commented that it appears to him the average density
of the developing area is keyed to approximately 5 dwelling units per acre and
inquired as to what the dwelling unit average exclusive of the golf course and
reservoir would be.
]/- '1 -]i ~ L_ _.11 I I , I1~ I I I I.I I, ,J. .IL t IIII II I ,Jllll l_ . J I I.
74-422
Anaheim Hills Golf Course Cl~hqq~, .4~eim. California - COUNCIL .MINUTES -
April 25,. 1~4,. 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Barisic stated that based on the PC zone introduced, covering 673
and 244 acres, on which the projection was 12,907 units - this divided into the
4,249 would produce a density factor of 3.1 units to the acre.
Mayor Thom advised that he felt some clarification was appropriate
when speaking about density of units to the acre, specifically, does this mean
the net developable acre, exclusive of streets and otherwise unusable land (net
acre) or of the total overall acre (gross acre).
Mr. Roberts advised that the planning done for the 1969 general plan
was on a gross acreage basis.
Mayor Thom stated that he felt the factor which should be used when
discussing density is the net developable acre.
Mr. Minamide inquired what the rate of development of parks is in
comparison with the rate of development of homes and people moving in.
Mr. John Collier, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported that up
to this point no funds have as yet been budgeted for development in the 23 acre
park adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road. The other parksite, just north of the golf
course, called Oak Canyon Park, is planned to be kept in its natural state and
will be used in addition for providing open spaces. There is a grant shared by
the City and School District of $185,000 for use of the Oak Canyon Park as a
natural area. However, there are no funds budgeted at the present time for
development of either of the two sites. He noted that there are several sites
west of the river which were purchased some time ago and have not yet been
developed which currently have higher priority.
Mr. Minamide stated that with regard to the school problem he is in
sympathy with the position of the School District. He inquired whether the
developers have given any consideration or attempted to be in concert with the
School District in order to alleviate these problems.
In regard to parks, Mr. Barisic added that both of the sites mentioned
by Mr. Collier would lend themselves to natural areas and there is an improved
roadway which extends to the entrance of the Oak Canyon Park site. Certain site
improvements such as work on an all-weather road and drainage appurtenances to
protect the trees have been accomplished by Anaheim Hills and this park is close
to being usable in some form. He reported that they will begin construction on
the trail system throughout the Edison easements in 8 to 9 months. In addition,
he related that when the agreement was made for dedication of 81 acres of park
land, Anaheim Hills also agreed to spend $100,000 in additional recreational
improvements.
For comment on the school situation, Mr. Barisic introduced Mr. Jack
Sickler, President of Anaheim Hills, Inc., who stated that he has been meeting
with Dr. Ingwerson, the Superintendent of the Orange Unified School District,
relative to the school situation. In view of the fact that the matter is in
litigation at the present time Mr. Sickler solicited suggestions from the audience
as to a resolution of the school problem.
Mr. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, voiced the opinion that
when a large developer comes into an area to build many living units in a community
which has had very low density for a long time, it would be very helpful if he
would dedicate some land for school sites in the same manner as park land and
other areas were dedicated. Mr. Krueger remarked that it appeared to him that
the developers in this instance have dedicated unusable land because of its
steepness, to the City, and are developing high density on the usable portion.
He felt that an evidence of cooperation on the developer's part would ease the
burden tremendously.
Mr. Sickler interjected that he does not necessarily agree with that
philosophy, and observed that if land is dedicated the school district would
still have to finance the construction of schools to house the children.
74-423
Anah~i~ Hills Golf Course Clubhouse, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL M~NUTES -
Apri. 1 25, 1974, 7:30 p.M.
Hr. Krueger related his experience on school bonds, having lived in
the canyon for 15 years, and expressed optimism as regards the passage of
bonds in the future, especially if the electorate sees some evidence of co-
operation from the developer. Hr. Krueger further noted that in other Cali-
fornia cities the rate of development has actually been slowed do~m because
of the inability of school districts to keep the pace. Hr. Krueger related
that as an early canyon resident he has contributed to some of the planning
phases for land use and advised that the earlier residents always felt the
canyon to be potentially, with the right development, a real showplace, ho~
ever the current trend of high density in buildable areas will result in just
another co~dnity of one tract after another.
Hr. Sickler disagreed with the statement that Anaheim Hills will be
another series of tracts pointing out that the lowest priced unit available
is close to $40,000. Further, he disagreed with the statement that all of the
land dedicated was undevelopable.
Hr. Doug Udlock, 5406 Westridge Road, referred to the fact that the
Anaheim Hills Golf Course Clubhouse was donated to the City by the developer
and questioned as to.why the same type of assistance might not be arranged for
the school district.
Hr. Sickler advised that philosophically he views this school respon-
sibility differently, that education is a right and yet it ceases to be so if
the bonds are not passed. He noted that the golf course clubhouse was a part
of the arrangements made at the time of golf course construction.
At the request of Councilman Seymour, Dr. Ingwerson, Superintendent
of the Orange Unified School District took the floor to comment. First he
thanked all of the residents in the canyon for their participation in the last
bond election. He advised that he is not representing the school district'
with an official view this evening but is attending to give informal remarks
as the Superintendent.
Dr. In,versos sun~narized the current situation at schools on all
three levels in the canyon and advised of the i~ninent opening of Canyon High
School which should alleviate the overcrowded high school situation. The
largest need will be for additional elementary school facilities according to
Dr. In~werson, and sites are needed on which to build the facilities or place
portable classrooms. He s,mrized the reasons for which he felt the bond
issue was not passed, noting in particular that there was a successful bond
election in 1971 at which time the electorate was informed that these bonds
would be sufficie~ ~ at least four years. However, the Anaheim Hills
development of &t~atres became i~ninent following that bond election and was
consequently not included in those plans. He pointed out that it is very
seldom that a school district the size of Orange Unified can accommodate
development of 4,200 acres at~-once. In conclusion, Dr. In~erson noted that
he does not wish to place blame on anyone, that he feels the reason that the
bonds did not carry was that the electorate was geared to believe that the
previous bond issue was sufficient for four years and it will consequently
take some time for them to gain back their confidence.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement
Association, Inc., remarked that the City Council has recently discussed a
condominium ordinance and asked what effect if any that new ordinance and
the densities therein described would have on projects already approved.
Hr. Charles Roberts, Zoning Supervisor, replied that the Planning
Co~ission held a work session on April 24, 1974 to consider the condominium
ordinance. There was considerable input on the part of the CommissiOn and
the date for public hearing before the Cou~ission is set for May 13, 1974.
It should be considered by Council as soon thereafter as possible.
Mayor Thom asked Hr. Roberts if there are any specifics in the
ordinance relating to density which might be of interest to those present
this evening.
74-424
Anaheim Hills Golf Course Clubhouse, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
April 25, 1974, 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Roberts reported that one of the factors considered in developing
this ordinance was the trend towards approval by both the Planning Commission
and City Council of condominium and planned-unit residential developments. This
reveals that typically most of the projects approved were in the vicinity of 12
units per net acre. He commented that Councilwoman Kaywood has indicated she
feels perhaps this might be lowered and that there will certainly be input from
the Council as well as the public and such consideration will be given towards
lowering the density recommended at that time.
Commissioner Farano indicated that this proposed ordinance was designed
to cover not only the organized development of condominiums but also to regulate
the conversion of apartments to condominiums. During their work session on t~is
matter he indicated that a density of 10 units to the acre was determined as more
likely to be recommended. He pointed out that building setbacks and basic lot
sizes were also discussed but no conclusions drawn. He encouraged interested
citizens to attend the next Planning Commission public hearing and/or work
session.
Commissioner Gauer addressed his remarks to Dr. Ingwerson, advising
him that he is cognizant of the situation which the Orange Unified School District
faces, having been Superintendent of Schools in Anaheim during the peak growth
years. He advised that from 1949 to 1957 the Anaheim District purchased 22 school
sites and that no developers, with the exception of one, ever dedicated any land
for school purposes. He stated that they did charge each deyeloper a school fee,
at a rate established for each apartment or dwelling unit constructed. He re-
marked that even with passage of school bonds for construction, the Orange Uni-
fied School District will still need to operate on double sessions for quite some
time as this was the experience in Anaheim. Further, he related the difficulties
experienced in passage of school bonds even after earthquakes when repairs and
construction were necessary and exhorted all those citizens who are interested to
work increasingly harder for passage of school bonds. In addition, Commissioner
Gauer related that he represents the Planning-Commission on the Parks and Recrea-
tion Commission and summarized some of the plans for Oak Canyon Park.
Mrs. Ozaki, 21312 Mohler ~rive, replied to Commissioner Gauer that
Dr. Ingwerson and the Orange Unifte~ School District are facing two problems
which were not applicable in his time. First, the extremely inflated land
prices which make it very difficult for the School District to go out and pur-
chase school sites. The other problem is that although the residents of the
Santa Aha Canyon live in Anaheim, they are in the Orange Unified School District
and, therefore, whenever any bond issues come up the voters in Orange, whose
schools are complete, will vote down the bonds. She commented that as hard as
the Canyon residents have worked, this is still a very large and very real
problem.
Mr. Wayne Stewart, resident of Anaheim Hills, asked what the impact is
on the density factor and necessity for parks and schools by the fact that many
of the people living in condominiums do not have children.
Mr. Richard DOyle, representative of Anaheim Hills. Inc., reported on
marked profiles for the area, specifically that the only concrete evidence is
occupied units. The first phase of The Gallery has been sold and a complete
buyer profile made of that development which indicates that today the average is
.6 children per unit. The single family development which is occupied as West-
r~dge averages approximately .85 children per house. He commented that it
is not necessarily the number of bedrooms which is a determining factor as much
as the price of the home. They anticipate that the number of children per house
will decline as prices rise.
Mr. Doyle reported that the national norms are: 1.1 school age child
per single family home; .8 school age child per unit of townhouse or condominium;
.4 school age child per two bedroom apartment. The Anaheim Hills development is
generally falling short of these norms.
Mr. Stewart Moss, 21463 Mohler Place, representing the Santa Ana Canyon
Homeowners Association remarked that the school population will not be affected
nearly as much by the Anaheim Hills development as it will by the construction
and development on the canyon floor which is much more severe. He felt that a
74-425
AnahetmMills Golf .Course .Clubhouse.. Anaheim_._ Ca!£forn£a.-.COUNCIL MINUTES -
ADrtl,~5. 1974. 7:.30 P.M.
review of past Planning Department and City Council zoning practices in canyon
development, particularly of the canyon floor, should be made as a much larger
school population can most likely be anticipated from chis area.
Councilman Seymour replied that he heartily concurred with Mr. Moss'
statements and remarks, that he estimates the impact on the school district
from the canyon floor development would be twice as great as Anaheim Hills
development. However, he noted that this evening meeting is in reference to
Anaheim Hills and he would prefer not to digress. He assured Mr. Moss that if
necessary, meetings similar to this would be held in the future to articulate
the development problems on the canyon floor.
Mrs. Vergene Walker, 410 Torrey Pines Circle, referred to Mr. Barisic's
co~nts regarding the swimming pool and tennis courts constructed as a recrea-
tional amenity for the Westridge tract. She indicated that while units one and
two were the only tracts constructed, these factlitteswere adequate, however, with
units three and four nearing completion, and the further expansion of the Westridge
development contemplated, these facilities will be completely inadequate. She
pointed out that the greatest need in this area is for neighborhood type parks
and that in .an attempt to secure additional open play space, the Westridge
Homeowner's Association approached the Grant Company in an attempt to purchase
two lots adjacent to the swimming pool and across from the sales office which
they were willing to develop as additional parks and which would make the pool
area more usable. In response to this approach the prices quoted by the Grant
Company were so exhorbitant that the Homeowner's Association could not afford
them.
Mr. Barisic replied that he did not mean to infer that the'limited
recreational facilities constructed in conjunction with Westridge would com-
pletely satisfy the recreational needs for all Westridge units. These were
constructed to supplement other areas. He indicated that there is a high
school site adjacent to Westridge and a park site also.
Mr. Allen, Grant Company of California, reported that the original
intent of the recreational facilities in Westridge vas to supplement, and only
to supplement, the normal recreational facilities in an R-1 subdivision which
is each individual lot; that this was merely an additional amenity which is
not found in 99 percent of single fmnily residential developments. Regarding
the price of the lots in question, he stated that he has not been contacted
regarding these but advised that they would be willing to submit information
on prices of those lots at today's market value to the President of the Home-
owner's Association.
Councilman Pebley left the meeting (9:10 P.M.)
Mrs. Walker further related her experience living in a northern
California co...,,,nitywhich also experienced a tremendous sur8
(from 11,000 to 26,000 approximately) and as a result had sew
supplying the necessary school facilities, severs, etc. She
to the efforts of a grass roots movement S.A.V.E. (Save All V
a referendum election was held and an ordinance adopted in re
electorate which placed restriction on growth in that area.
that this ordinance was recently tested in court and was over
Councilman Seymour stated that there is no way anyo
stop growth and that the purpose of this meeting is to define
~rowth is wanted in the canyon and to some extent, how much.
the City Council is dedicated to insuring that there is aliv
left when Anaheim Hills project development is complete and t
Oranse County.
I~r. Gerald Podolak advised that he is a resident of
Orange and he stated that StAG Planning Area 96 which refers
area calls for "X" number of people projected to a certain da
that it is his understanding that what is being planned in An
constitutes less than 6% of Planning Area 96 with almost 1507
total population. He invited comments.
· in growth
eral problems
advised that due
alley Environment)
sponse to the
She indicated
turned.
ne can totally
what type of
He advised that
sable environment
hey have left
the City of
to the canyon
Ce. He advised
aheim Hills
of this projected
74-426
Anaheim Hil~s Golf Course Clubhouse, Anaheim, California - QOUNCIL MINUTES -
April 25,. 1974, 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Assistant Director of Development Services, advised
that the person on staff most knowledgeable in this field is Mr. Don McDaniel,
the Planning Supervisor, who regularly attends these SCAG meetings. Further, he
noted that the City of Anaheim Hill and Canyon General Plan was done in advance
of these SCAG projections and that there are in fact many local agencies which
do not agree necessarily with the manner in which SCAG arrived at their popula-
tion projections, and there is an honest difference of opinion as to what might
be an appropriate density and living environment.
SCAG.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Anaheim is not a member city of
Councilman Seymour advised that there is in process a cost/benefit
study done in concert with the County of Orange. This study should demonstrate
the cost for a city to extend services easterly versus the benefits derived from
taxes and revenues. Hopefully, this will point out what it is reasonable to expect
in the way of growth and what price must be paid to achieve or promote that growth.
Dr. Podolak next asked what plans the Anaheim Hills Corporation has for
some alleviation of the dependency on the automobile to move people in and out of
the Anaheim Hills area.
Mr. Dick Doyle responded that the Orange County Transit District has
informed him they will extend the bus line to Imperial Highway next month. How-
ever, in order to extend it any further the development must reach a certain
population figure.
Dr. Podolak remarked that this is the County's plan and inquired again
what Anaheim Hills, Inc., is going to do to get people from their planned community
to the County trunk line, short of using the automobile.
Mr. Sickler advised that Anaheim Hills has no plans for any transportation
system per se. He indicated again that there may be a philosophical difference and
questioned whether the emphasis on responsibility for current problems should be
placed here on where automobiles are used or in Detroit where they are made.
Dr. Podolak agreed with this point and indicated that he personally felt
that mass transit is not the answer. Further, Dr. Podolak comented on the failure
of the recent school bond issue, as a resident of the City of Orange, and indicated
that he felt a change in attitude on the part of developers and citizens in the
canyon which would show the remainder of the voters in the Orange Unified School
District that there is a willingness to compromise on their parts would be singularly
important in the success of any future school bond issue.
Councilman Seymour concurred with Dr. Podolak and remarked that the correct
attitude would solve 90% of the problem. He further advised that this City Council's
attitude is one of a positive nature and that they seek to cooperate with other
cities and to do everything within their legal powers to solve the problem in an
equitable fashion.
Mr. Ray Talmadge, 425 Westridge Circle, asked why the City of Anaheim
did not assume the responsibility for the schools in the hill and canyon area
when it was annexed to the City.
Dr. Ingwerson advised that schools are not under the jurisdiction of a
City Council but under a duly elected Board of Education. Further, this Board of
Education must respond to the zoning practices and the growth philosophy of the
City Council. In the case of the Orange Unified School District he advised that
they deal with five different City Councils, although most of the growth is
occurring in the City of Anaheim. He related that this is a part of the litigation
currently under way in the courts; i.e., the Orange Unified School District believes
that if you are going to have growth of the magnitude in the Canyon Area and Anaheim
Hills, that the City and School District do need to plan more cooperatively. He
advised that he cannot answer as to what type of planning the City did for schools
but that there is now a backlash because there has not been enough involvement of
various segments of the cormnunity.
74-427
Anaheim Hills Golf ~urse Clubhouse. Anaheim. California - COII~CIL NII~JTES -
· ~rfl 2}.,. 1974., ?;30-.P.N.
Nr. Talmadse remarked that he is from San Diego which has a Unified
School District and does not cake care of any unincorporated areaS' and that
ic would seem to him that the City CoUncil and pl,anninH Co~miSsion of Anaheim
would have been more re~onsive if this Vere the jituaC!on here as veil.
Dr. In,vernon added that he is familiar rich the method used by the
County of San Diego vhich requires chic Hn over linpll£ied terms) when a
developer wishes to Cake out & bulldingpernit he.nmsC.~tre~ check with the
school district to see whet iepect his project rill have on the schools and
agree co a tentative type of contract in which he con~ributes basically $700
per pupil for housing o~ the echoolege population. .
1~'. Bob ltcqueen noted that the City of Anaheim has a hill and canyon
area which is unique and ~hat ra~her than rsqutrins'butlders to grade for [lac
pads and thereby destroy the natural contoursof the C~yon, a reviev of the
zoning and gradin~ ordinances should be Conducted Co provide the means co
allow the hills and canyons to remain in amOre natural'state.
Council~an Seymour idvtsed Chic C~unCii~i~a~m°d has requested
a review o~ several ordinances inclUdtn~ the ~radtn~ ordinance.
Hr. R°n Thompson,'AsSisCanC~Ditect°r of' Development Services, advised
Chic the Plannin~ Comaisston. vtll hold a work session on Hay 8, 197~, in pre-
parities for the Joint City Council/City Planning Comm£ssionmeeting scheduled
Hay 15, 197& and that at tha~ ti~ they hope Co determine whac the first line
priorities of the Counctlare.
Connissioner Farine noted chat in the past he has participated in
any number of public hearings on delicate, subjeCts ouches the general plan
for the hill and canyon area, the general pies'amendments, and very offCen
chess heartnss yore held with es~t~ Council--s. He encouraged all
citizens to attend the Planning Cmmisston york session on Hay 8th preparatory
co the meettn$ rich theC~C0~fI, He. e~0rce~ the pUblic not co vaic [or
the public hearin~ Vhen t~e'~ordinance is ready fo~ adOPtiOn Since ic is di[fi-
cult the add input aC this stage and acconq~liSh anythin~.
Councilman Seymour requested chic 'Itc. ClementS, the Public Informe-
tion Officer, contact the newspapers just prior to theHay, eth City Planning
Coumissionwork session so chat a r~ndeE o~ this meeting can be placed in
the press. Yur~her,.ha eucourqed public attendance-st.the next Parks and
Recreation Coumieaiouueettng since park development is of vital concern to
the hill and canyon residents.
Hr. Collier announced chat the next Park and Recreation Co~nission
meetingwould be held Thursday, Nay 16, 197&, 5:00 co 7:00 P.~. ac Sir Ceorge's
SmOrgasborg, Euclid and Broadway.
Hr. Joe Temple, Councilean from the City of Orange, advised chat the
attitude of the Or,a~e City.cOUnCil is Co offer couplets cooperation; that they
understand ~he probl~a* f~d b~.th$ City si ~, ~vieVof the fact chat
they are facing ~Lm~l~P~bte~'~th~ela Hills on,hOeChst side si ~he
ridge. He stated chic ~e ~e City C~nc~l is ~ll~.Co mec ac ~y time
ac any place ~ch the ~e~ City ~u~il ~ rich ~..I~rson Co resolve
mcual areas o~ difficulty.
In regards Co the SCA~ suit against the NtA~l~ive co Anaheim
Hills, Couuctln~nTeeplo clarified thaC Chis unodtrecl~l~eCe~e ~ ~er
the Enviro~al I~ac~ R~ nd no~ aC ~hetm Hills ~r ,. ~e c~en-
Cion ns chic alCh~ t~~ o~ the ~etmHills ~~ had ~
enviro~nCal i~ac~ r~r~ prepare, the ~ should ~e C~ into 'considera-
tion the to,al l~acc o~ ~he ~11 d~el~ rather c~ ~t~r~nc by incre~nC.
C~ll~ Se~ Ch~ C~nctlm T~le ~ a~Ce~in~, and
r~ked chic having~t'viCh:g~ncil~n T~le and Smith of ~ange, ic vas
obvious Co h~ Chic there ia indeed a ve~ viable spirit of cooperation
extant and pled~Che o~ C~e of co~eraci~ ~ the ~ahein City C~ncil.
74-428
Anaheim Hi~s,Golf .qourse Clubhouse, Anaheim. ¢all!ornia - COUNCIL M~,~ ,
A~ril 25, .~974, 7:30 P..M.
COMmeNTS AND/~R OUESTIONS _FROMCITY ST%FF: No further discussion or comments were
offered.
CO~tENTS AND DISCUSSIC~..FR. OM.TflE PLANNING_COMMT_SSION: Commissioner Herbst made
reference to the fact that the planning for the hill and canyon area including
park and school sites, began in 1966 and not just in the past two years and that
this planning was the result of numerous public hearings before the City Council
and the Planning Commission to which the public and the Orange Unified School
District were invited. At that time there was no comment from the Orange Unified
School District that they could not handle this additional population. He noted
that Councils, Commissions and the Trustees of Boards of Education do change, and
in the instance of Orange Unified School District, Dr. Ingweraon has only been
Superintendent for the past two years. He felt it Unjust to say that the City of
Anaheim has been negligent in informing the Orange Unified School District of
building activities in the canyon, when the dates on the exhibits displayed that
this planning was initiated in 1966.
Dr. Ingwerson advised that the advanced planning such as was done in the
hill and canyon area and for the City of Irvine is not of any great benefit to
the school district since they cannot issue school bonds on this type of informa-
tion nor can they afford to construct schools in anticipation of a future projected
population. Instead, the school district must wait until the builders actually
take out permits or have tentative maps approved so that they are fully aware of
the location of school age population in order to supply the schools. He outlined
the Orange Unified School District's planning efforts but reiterated that it ts
not possible to plan for 4,200 acres over night. He indicated that the Santa Ama
canyon floor does not pose a particular problem because of the small acreage which
will be purchased and built on a smaller scale.
Commissioner Farano reiterated that no school district ever builds schOols
in any location until the need is there, but that the facts are that the number of
homes to be located in this area were projected in 1966.
Councilman Thom pointed out that in the normal course of development
the City Planning Commission and Council are accustomed to development of small
or medium size parcels whereas in October of 1970 the entire Nohl Ranch came
under one ownership. The unusual aspect is that these 4,200 acres are going
under development practically at once in a time span of 3 years and 6 months and
the governmental function is more adept at accon~nodatin$ piecemeal development.
He agreed with Consnissioner Herbst, and added that!he did not think that either
governmental.agency should be criticized as this represents an unusual situation.
Councilman Seymour remarked that placing blame will never solve the
problem but an improved cooperative attitude as the Council is attempting to
initiate at this meeting will go much 'further towards the resolution. He called
for any further comments or discussion from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Herbst remarked that he was pleased to see the large turn-
out of the public and encouraged their participation in Planning Commission work
sessions, noting that their input is necessary to aid in the decisions of the
Planning Co~znission.
~UMMATION.- COHI~NTS BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood asked Consnissioner
Farano to read the titles on the agenda for the Joint Planning C~isston/City
Council work session to be held Nay 15, 1974, at 7:00 P.M. for the benefit of
the audience.
Councilman Seymour expressed appreciation to all segments of the co~nity
represented at the meeting - Council, Planning Commission, Public, Developers, and
City Staff. He requested a show of hands of those who would feel that addit£onal
such meetings in late May would be of benefit and a majority of the audience indi-
cated they thought attendance at another such meeting beneficial. Councilman
Seymour indicated that he personally felt it important to bring government to the
people in this manner and thereupon returned the chairmanship of the meeting to
Mayor Thom.
74-429
Anaheim Hills Golf Coursm
~yor ~ c~curr~ wi~h ~uncil~n Se~ur's r~rks and ~precta-
tion and especially ~hanked C~ncil~n Se~ur for taking the leadership
posture regardi~ ~his
~~- _~ ~~I~ ~ ~ere bei~ ~ further business to discuss,
C~issi~er F~ano offered a ~t~ to ~Journ ~he ~e~t~. ~isst~er
Ki~ seconded ~he
~Journ~: 10:00 P.N.
~~- ~ ~~: ~il~ ~~ ~ ~o ~J~ ~e ~day,
the ~~ of ~t~ ~ ~ er~t~ f~ ~ ~ ~ Ct~c
C~. C~ci~n ~~ ~ ~ ~t~. ~ ~~.
Adjourned: 10:00 P.M.
Anaheim Hills. Golf Course Clubh~ase,
Asrtl _29. 1974,1 12:00 Noo~
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular
Session for the purpose of hearing further presentation regarding
the Civic Center Project.
X~ESENT:
ABSENT:
C0~NCIL ~M~RS: -K~~ Seymour" an~ Thom
COI~IL HEHBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Nurdoch
DEPUTY CITY ATTiHNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Alona H* Farrens
ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE: Daniel D'Urso
DISASTER SERVICES ASSISTANT: Bill Heckman
CIVIC CENTER ARCHITECTS: Daniel L. Rowlaad, Leisy Home ~d
Randy Bosch.
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.
Hr. Dan Rowland advised that the issue which the Architects wish
to discuss with Council concerns the emergency operations center for the
Civic Center as it has been planned to this point. He advised that ~the
project is now approximately a week to ten days away frow final prel£mtnary
drawings and is at the point where direction from Council is necessary.
Hr. Rowland advised that Mr. Bosch will discuss some of the very
recent legislation re~ardin~ E.O.C.'s (Emergency Operations Center) and
Federal Funding for same, as well as the implica~ions.
Hr. Bosch explained that the concept of an E.O..C. is to provide
~ood operating co~unications ~n the event of a civil e~er~cy and in parti-
cular, in a nuclear event. He indicated that a State-wi~e ~as~er plan is in
preparation, approved by the Federal Government, which ~ould per, it in, er*
connection of, emergency operating centers for direction of operation, s in
crisis situations. He advised that the standards for leveI of protection
established for such centers is 100 pS. (pS - established pr~tection factor,
or in essence, an individual within such emergency operating center would be
100 times more likely to survive the disaster than an individual on the out-
side.)
lit. Bosch, using preliminary sketches of Phase II, i~dicated tl~e
locations considered for the E~er~ency Oper&Cions Center which ~ere the
bas~nt, fifth floor and parking structure. The rationale behind ~he con-
sideration of a fifth E.0. C. was that this would be centrally located for