1980/06/0380-670
City Ha~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3~ 1980, 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
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to 'order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Terry Hutchison, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Sam Crilly on behalf of the
Anaheim Tennis Club for its financial contribution toward the Construction of
the tennis facilities in Pearson Park.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Parks and Recreation Month in Anaheim" - June, 1980
The proclamation was accepted by Deputy City Manager James Ruth.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
minutes of the regular meeting of April 1, 1980, subject to typographical correc-
tions were approved. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after read-
ing of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby
given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request
is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in
regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,904,252.53, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
123/174: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR ACQUIRED CITY PROPERTY: On motion
by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a Residential Rental
Agreement was authorized with Regina and Teofelo Carlos for 225½ East La Palma
Avenue. which property was acquired by the City through its CDBG Program as
recommended in memorandum dated May 22, 1980 from the Executive Director of
Community Development, Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED.
80-671
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - TEN bIONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1980: Finance
Director George Ferrone first clarified questions posed by the Council regarding
specific items in the report.
Councilman Roth then moved to receive and file the Monthly Financial Statement
the ten months enddd April 30, 1980. Counci. lman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
160: CHANGE ORDER TO PURCHASE ORDER K-02910: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue
a change order to Purchase Order K-029t0 with Southland Chevrolet, reducing the
number of vehicles from seven to four and the price from $39,575.20 to $22,614.40,
as recommended in memorandum dated May 27, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION
CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - SIXTY t50 KVAR LINE CAPACITORS - BID NO. 3650:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low
bid of Maydell & Hartzell (Sangamo), was accepted and purchase authorized in
the amount of $20,378.7], including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated May 27, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
174: 1980 ANAHEIM SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PRO(;RJDI: Councilman Roth moved to
(1) authorize a grant agreement with the Orange County Manpower Commission in
the amount of $338,181 for the 1980 Anaheim Summer Youth Program and (2) authorize
an agreement with Tomkinson and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $34,300, to
provide a structured Labor Market Orientation Component for youth participating
in the 1980 Summer Youth Employment Program, as recommended in memorandums dated
May 27, 1980 from the Director of Human Resources, Garry McRae. Councilwoman
Ka>~ood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-245 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated May 27, 1980 from the Human Resources Director. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-245: A RESOLUTION ()F TIlE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING TWO NEW PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE CETA YOUTH SERVICES
PROGRAM AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-147.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The blnyor declared Rosolution N~. ~0R-745 d. ly p,~ssed ~nd adopted.
123/150: WAStlINGTON COb~N1TY CENTER I'REI,IMtNARY PLAN: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to approve the preliminary design plan for the Washington Community Center,
as submitted by Thirtieth Street Architects, as recommended in memorandum dated
May 27, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager, ,James Ruth. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mrs. Joe biillson, 175 South Rio Vista, Apt. 27, stated
that as a Board Member of the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club, number one priority
80-672
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3~ !980, 1:30 P.M.
was the issue of parking. It was of dire importance to them because their whole
Center was diminishing due to the lack of parking. She obtained information from
City staff that 50 parking spaces would be provided by October 1, 1980. She asked
that the parking area be begun at once, rather than waiting until that time.
Relative to the crossing light that was going to be provided on Lincoln Avenue
in that particular area, she learned it was going to be completed on July 7th.
She urged the Council to give the proper authority to have the parking area
completed at once and the crossing light be installed.
In answer to the Mayor, l)eputy City Manager James Rnth explained that he had
discussed the situation with the architects and it was felt they could include
as an alternate in the bid package that the parking lot be installed first with
the exclusion of only the area next to the building. They wanted to check to
see if that would increase the cost ~,f the b~d and also to assure enough safety
for peop]e when parking and walkJn~ ~v~r to th~ Sen~or Citizens Center. They
felt it could be do~e and C~ey wo~lld t-.~' t:,,"~i: ~' !~' '.' '!~ Couucii with final
plans in approximately 3 weeks.
The Mayor asked that Mrs. Millson be informed when they did come back to the Council.
Councilman Overholt then asked if when the George Washington Community Center
and parking were completed, was there going to be enough parking not only to
serve the Senior Citizens Center, but also the Community Center. Further, was
it contemplated that people would be coming to the Center in vehicles?
Mr. Ruth felt there would be a certain number walking but there would also be
a certain number ~f cars. They felt the 50 spaces being provided at Washington
School would be adequate, to accommodate thc programs at the school and would
take some of the overflow from the Senior Citizens Center. They were also
coordinating with the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest,
in looking for additional parking close to the Center. Mr. Priest was doing
the best he could to provide parking directly east of the Senior Citizens
Center. Between the two, they felt they would be able to accommodate a signi-
ficant amount of the needs at present, and as well, the property by the E1
Camino building had been utilized by a number of City employees who were now
parking in the Civic Center parking structure, freeing up additional space.
Also, if they needed overflow parking, they could accommodate 30 additional
cars on the grass area of the Washington School.
Councilman Bay asked if it had been determined where on Lincoln Avenue the cros-
sing light was going to be installed.
Mr. Ruth answered it was his undertanding it would be at the northwest corner
of the Washington School, going directly over to the Senior Citizens Center, and
Mr. Priest indicated that July 7th, was the date for completion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ALTERATIONS TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER - PHASE I AND II: On motion
by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an architectural agreement
was authorized with Shamma Enterprises, Inc., to bc 8.5% of the total estimated
construction cost of l'hase I and Ii for alterations to the Senior Citizens
Center, in the amount not to exceed $'3,230, as recommended in memorandum dated
May 29, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
80-673
C.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
123: REORGANIZATION NO. 47 DETACHMENT TO THE CITY OF ORANGE: Councilman Bay
offered Resolution No. 80R-246 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
May 2?, 1980, from the Planning Department, consenting to the detachment of
certain uninhabited territory from the City of Anaheim and the annexation of
said territory to the City of Orange, designated as Reorganization No. 47, con-
sisting of approximately 31 acres located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch and Royal
Oak Roads. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE (]I~~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND CONSENTING TO THE DETACtIMENT OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY FROM
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANNEXATION OF SAID TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ORANGE,
DESIGNATED AS REORGANIZATION NO. 47.
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. 80R-246 duly passed and adopted.
104: ASSESSMENT - STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1977-1 - TRACT NO. 1404:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-247 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated May 28, 1980 from the Public Works Executive Director, Thornton
Piersall, confirming the Superintendent of Streets report estimating the cost of
maintenance and operation of Street Lighting Assessment District 1977-1 (Tract
No. 1404) to be $816.06, for contract year July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981; author-
izing the Director of Finance to file with the County Auditor on or before
August 10, 1980, n certified copy of thi~ resolution and a certified copy of
the report of tho Superh~teudent of Streets; ;tm[ authorizing the County Auditor
to enter each assessment on the County tax rolls. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-247: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1977-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY i, 1980 TO JUNE 30, 1981,
FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM
FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1404)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL blEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-247 duly passed and adopted.
104: ASSESSMENT - STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1972-1-B - TRACT NO.
1959: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-248, as recommended in memor-
andum dated May 28, 1980 from the Public Works Executive Director, confirming
the Superintendent of Streets report estimating the cost of maintenance and
operation of Street Lighting Assessment District 1972-1-B (Tract No. 1959) to
be $1,049.28, for contract year July l, 1980 to June 30, 1981; authorizing the
Director' of Finance to file with the County Anditor on or before August 10, 1980,
a certified copy of this resolution and a certified copy of the report of the
80-674
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Superintendent of Streets; and authorizing the County Auditor to enter each
assessment on the County tax rolls. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
LE~ING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1972-1-B FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1980 TO JUNE 30, 1981,
FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM
FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NO. 1959)
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. 80R-248 duly passed and adopted.
142/155: ORDINANCE NO. 4138: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4138
as an urgency ordinance for adoption, which ordinance was first read in full by
staff. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4138: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI~ OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 17.28
TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION,
AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF AND ~AT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE
EFFECT.
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. 4138 duly passed and adopted.
105: REMOVAL OF FERNANDO fi__AJ:A?.I_~_?TR_O~t TH_~ _C?_??~;NJ'.t?!' SE~Ir?f_~fi ~B_O~RD: Mayor
Seymour stated as the Council would ret:all, ,:o,~ ~.~ '~:-; ~i.~ essed by the Community
Services Board relative to some excessive absen~ ~s, !>.~tict~iarly as it pertained to
one of their members, Fernando Galaviz. The record would indicate that Mr. Galaviz
had not attended a meeting of the Community Services Board (CSB) in the prior six
months. The Council had received a communication from the Chairman of the CSB,
Steve Jimenez, recommending to the Council that they remove Mr. Galaviz from the
Board because of excessive absences from Board meetings.
MOTION: The Mayor continued that there had been enough concern expressed relative
to the absences of member Galaviz that the Council should take action. He there-
upon moved to remove Fernando Galaviz from the CSB due to excessive absences from
Board meetings of six months or more. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: REMOVAL OF MARY DINNDORF FROM TttE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION:
Mayor Seymour shared with the Council his concern, as well as the Council's
concern, relative to a recent development with another public official in the
City, Mary Dinndorf, Vice-Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Commission.
Recently. the Council received copies of a lawsuit in which Mrs. Dinndorf, as
80-675
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
a plaintiff, joined in a suit against the City attempting to overturn an anti-
gambling ordinance more specifically aimed at a card parlor. When he received
a copy of the suit showing that Mrs. DJnndorf was involved in suing the C[ty,
he was personally shocked and disgusted, not that he would deprive her of her
Constitutional right to sue. On the other hand, he believed such action by a
public official who was supposed to represent the Council and the City itself
would be damaging to their image, and it was totally inconsistent with their
philosophy as a City Council wanting to run a clean City and remove prostitution
and gambling from it.
In addition, a few months ago the Council dealt with a matter in which, at least
in many citizens' opinion, Mrs. Dinndorf made an ethnic slur on a particular segment
of the community in her offical capa~'~ty as a Redevelopment Commissioner. At that
time, be apologized publicly for her c~nduct. He did not think they could any
longer afford to look the other way wh(~n a p,htic official conducted herself
in such a fashion, while at the same time representing the City.
MOTION: On the foregoing basis, Councilman Seymour moved to remove Mary Dinndorf
from the Community Redevelopment Commission. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor asked that both the vacancies on the Community Redevelopment Commission
and the Community Services Board, as previously discussed, be posted and advertised
accordingly.
150: SURFACING OF PARKING LOT AT EDISON PARK: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to
the communication received from Mary R,th Pinson, Chairman of the Park & Recreation
Commission. There was an ongoing problem with the parking lot at Edison Park due
to the fact that it was a dirt lot and every time the wind blew or dirt bikes used
the area, it caused a problem. The Department bad no funds to initiate the pro-
ject at present although the job was ready to go to bid.
MOTION: Councilwoman Ka.vwood moved to appropriate $15,000 from the Council
Contingency Fund so that the Edison Park parking lot could be surfaced immediately.
Councilman Bay se(~onded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth commented that he did not see any endorse-
ment from James Ruth on the matter.
Deputy City Manager Ruth explained that they had discussed the matter within the
Department, and he met with the residents in that area who had submitted petitions
requesting that the parking lot be surfaced. They had placed the project in next
year's budget, the problem was very acute at the moment and getting worse to the
point where if more damage occurred to the existing surface, it would cost more
money by waiting.
Councilman Roth was in accord with the request, but indicated that he first
wanted to have Mr. Ruth's approval in such instances; the Mayor also felt that
it would be appropriate that when Mr. Ruth knew something such as this was
coming, that he provide input to Council in advance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Ha Il, An.:{heim, Cai [f~wn]a - (;OI'NCI , MINUTES - Jnr~e 1, ]qg(I ]:30 P M.
105: APPOINTMENT TO ri'U? ?q.J,;_! ~!I'?_~St.'_ .,\l~l![$??_¥~ [:??;,!!.e,/~ r~,)'q: ~,!a,.,or Seymour asked
that the Council be [,~et.~rtd to make .~n appointnlcnt t~, cl~, ~t,.tf Course Advisory
Commission on next Tuesday. He received notification and the Council would be
receiving a letter, that Richard Haynie had removed bimse]f from consideration
for the Commission, since he became aware that iht, r~c.,,t !ng t:ime would be in direct
conflict with his service on the Public Util:i, les f~o~nr~,t. Thus, he was no longer
an applicant for consideration.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Council also received a letter from Dr.
Ralph Riddell, who had requested he be appointed to the Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, 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: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Jeri Cunningham for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident involving City employee at the corner of Katella Avenue
and Katella Way, on or about April 2, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Albert W. Clark for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of power problem during work conducted by Public Utilities Department
on the pole behind 1526 West Chateau Avenue, on or about March 31, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Roni Nadler for damages purportedly sustained as a result
of actions by Anaheim Police, arrest and prosecution of claimant, and harassment,
on or about February 7, 1980, and continuing.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission--blinutes of May 15, 1980.
b. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Report for April 1980.
c. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of October 17, 1979, February 20 and
April 16, 1980.
d. 175: Consulting Engineer's Report to Bondholders of Water Revenue Series
1971 Bonds - Fiscal Year 1978-79.
3. 108: DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT: In accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Police, a Dinner-Dancing Place Permit was approved for The French
Quarter, 919 South Knott Street, for dancing nightly, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
(George T. Nichols, applicant)
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11122: Submitted by Homes by John Lyttle, to
est~blisb a 6-lot subdivision on proposed RS-liS-22,000(SC) property ]ocated
on the west side of Country Hill Rond, east side of Old Bridge Road and south
of Mohler Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11122, and granted
a negative declaration status at their meeting of May 19, t980.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood ,.~[f~,red ~.It,~oIution Nos. 80R-249
and 80R-250, both inclusive, for adoption ~n accord.'~nct, with the reports, rec-
ommendations and certifications furnished each r~n~~il ~Iember and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Reso!,~tJ~>u !~.-~k.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-249: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI'I5~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (R. C. Crum,
et ux.)
103: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 29 ANNEXATION. (uninhabited, consisting of
approximately 22.182 acres along the City's southerly boundary, extending from
the southerly extension of Imperial H~ghway eastward for a distance of approxi-
mately 8,000 feet)
Ro]l Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-249 and 80R-250, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4135: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4135 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4135: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-2, RM-2400)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4135 duly passed and adopted.
142/155: ORDINANCE NO. 4136: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4136
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4136: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 17.28
TO TITLE ~7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLOOD HAZARD.
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. 4136 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4137: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4137 for adoption.
Re'f'er to Ordinance Book
80-678
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, .1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4137: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMFNDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(27), ML)
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. 4137 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4139: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4139 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4139: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-23, RM-2400)
114: COMMENTS ON RECALL ISSUE: Councilman Overholt stated it was an important
day in his life politically and otherwise, and he wanted to take the opportunity
to thank four people in the front row representing the press, since it might be
his last opportunity to do so if he was not successful in the vote on Recall taking
place today. He thanked Jack Boettner, Los Angeles Times and Molly Garnett, The
Register for, in his opinion, fair and complete reporting of the battle in which
he found himself since October of 1978. He felt that those two regional newspapers
had tried to be fair and he wanted to personally express his appreciation to each
of the reporters and their newspapers.
To Dave Schumacher of the Anaheim Bullet,n, he stated that frankly he was pleasantly
surprised when the Bulletin in last night's edition endorsed "No" on Recall. He
thanked Debbie Arrington of the Orange County News relative to that paper's endorsement
about a week ago of a "No" vote on Recall. Concerning the Anaheim Hills newspaper
which he received once a week, he thanked Lee Podolak for their fair coverage.
Every week he appreciated devotion the press exhibited in trying to report the
news, good or bad.
Councilman Overholt also expressed h~s appreciation to the other members of the
Council for their support in the "fight" which had not been an easy one. It had
been fati~uin~ emotionally and physically, as well as fatiguing to the community
financially and emotionally. He was glad that they had come to the day of decision.
Coum-ilwom~n Kaywood stat~.d that al/:h~ugh ~;}!~ !,~i ~t ;;i:';il..i to make any comments
today relative to the Recall, she had to refle~.'t t~ ~mc of Mayor Seymour's famous
remarks, she would trust the people's good sense and fairness when voting on the
issue. With her 20-year record of service to the community, she could not
believe it had all been in vain or would go unnoticed. Regarding the entire
irresponsible, immoral Recall, perhaps some day the laws would change so that
anybody wanting to play games would have to pay the cost that all the taxpayers
had to pick up on the pending Recall.
106: BUDGET DISCUSSION: Mayor Seymour noted that today would determine one way
or the other if the budget document which they had been provided by the City
Manager was a good one to consider or whether the City Manager was going to be
asked to look further with regard to a Proposition 9 budget. He asked that the
Council be prepared next Tuesday to undertake budget discussions starting at
10:00 a.m.
80-679
C..~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
There was no opposition in so doing by any Council Members.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called tt~e meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:10 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2039 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Kenny Golf Enterprises, Inc., to permit a water slide on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 3200 Carpenter Avenue, Camelot Miniature Golf Course.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-228, declared that
the subject project should not be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since there would b~' significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact, due to this project and further,
denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2039.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Kenny Golf Enterprises,
Inc., and public hearing scheduled and contin,ed from January 2, April 15 and
May 27, 1980 to this date.
Miss Annika Santalai~ti, Assistant Director for Zoning, reported to the Council
as she had done the previous week (see minutes that date). At that time, they
distributed copies of the canyon industrial questionnaire which had also been
redistributed to the Council, summarizing the responses of 100 of 300 respondents.
About two-thirds indicated no particular concerns about certain commercial uses
in the industrial area, while about one-third ~ndicated they would be concerned
over having neighbors with that type o~ t~se. ]'hey also had a memorandum from
the Police Department giving some commentary (see memorandum dated May 23, 1980
from the Assistant Director for Zoning, made a part of the record) on the exper-
iences of the Police Department with o, tdoor recreational activities.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated from those who were questioned, she presumed they
knew who had answered and that they were not anonymous. She asked for clarif-
ication that not just smaller companies were involved, but also larger companies
as well.
Miss Santalahti explained that they sent out the questionnaire in a random sense
to approximately 100 property owners and about 200 tenants. They did not make
any effort to identify who the returns came from, but in her review, of those
companies to whom the questionnaire was sent, she considered it to be a good
distribution of bott~ large and small industries. She d~d not know if all the
responses were from small industries. She was very pleased with the one-third
response and it was an ew~n distribution of tile owners and tenants, so that both
groups had about one-third of their people interested in responding.
Councilman Roth asked if staff had received any calls from either the Chamber
or the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC); Miss Santalahti answered
that they did forward copies of the material to both groups inviting them to
respond if they wished to do so, but thus far no communication had been received.
Councilman Overholt noted there was an error in the percentage on number one
of the questionnaire summary, and he believed it should indicate 74% instead of
80-680
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3.~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
24%; Miss Santalahti confirmed that was correct and it should reflect 74% "noes"
next to property owner.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Fred Kenny, representing Kenny Golf Enterprises, owners and operators of
Camelot Miniature Golf Course, explained that he and his family had been in the
miniature golf course business for 25 years and in the past 10 years had built,
owned and operated the Camelot Miniature Golf Course. They were present today
after several continuances to request approval of a water slide under Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2039. Several months ago, (see minutes January 2, 1980)
they asked for a continuance, the purpose being, after meeting before the Planning
Commission there were some concerns expressed that they wanted to mitigate during
that time. A concern was expressed about the water slide being too close to the
freeway. They subsequently moved it back as far as possible to alleviate the
concerns relative to visual interference with traffic on the freeway. The proposed
water slide was different from other slides in that the people would travel down
fiberglass tubes which were translucent, but not transparent and, therefore, it
was not possible to see anyone travelling in the tubes, eliminating the distraction
factor. They also felt it would be better to lower the overall height of the
slide from 60 plus feet to 55 plus feet.
They contacted land owners in the area to get their blessing on the project,
since they were located in the industrial zone and realizing they had a responsi-
bility to their neighbors. They showed the renderings, proposals and plans and
did obtain letters of support from tbem, which he again presented in portfolio
(made a part of the record). They were pleased with the support given by the
property owners. Bragen Corporation, among other things, stated that they
ran an attractive facility and were happy with them. Kilroy Industries stated
they had no objections and in their opinion, the proposed slide was an attrac-
tive amenity to the area. There were also other comments and statements of
support ~ontained in the letter submitted.
Mr. Kenny continued that they were happy with the survey sent out by staff
because whereas their survey was mere]y of close-by neighbors, the City survey
covered businesses throughout the industrial area, the results of which showed
that they felt good about recreation in the industrial area. On the particular
question regarding outdoor recreation, 70% of the property owners and 75% of
the tenants were in favor, reflecting good support from the community at large.
In concludi~g, Mr. Kenny stated they fe~t ther~~ was a need for family recreation
in Anaheim and C~melot tried to provide for that need. They had many customers
frequenting their business who were happy about their facility and who thought
it attractive. They felt that the water slide too would be an attractive addi-
tion and provide good family recreation.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay recalled a previous hearing (see minutes April 15, 1980) where
another gentlemen appeared who owned property immediately adjacent to the subject
property. He gave a detailed description of his plans for his property which
included a roller rink with a lake. Therefore, what they had was a place which
80-681
City Hall.~ Anaheim..~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
would almost divert visitors from the East because they would think they were
already at Disneyland, and it was located in a prime industrial area. That
area was not the place for commercial-recreational uses. In viewing the artist
conception of the water slide, he conceded it was an exciting looking structure
and although he had nothing against w~ter slides, he could not agree this was
the place for it. He had driven through many industrial areas the past week
and, properly zoned, landspaced, etc., it could be an attractive area. He did
not think the mix of commercial-recreational into the industrial zone was for
the good of the industrial zone or for the City and, therefore, he was not
supportive of the CUP.
Councilman Roth stated the returns from the survey indicated a strong support
for the project and no one was present in opposition. Also, the Chamber and
the AEDC had not attended to oppose tl~e project. On one hand, they were per-
mitting an additional amount of rec~e;~tional use, meaning more people, cars and
children in the area, while at the same time they were talking about another
enforcement officer to crack down on e~mmercia] use almost in the same immediate
area. In his opinion, commercial use was more closely related to industrial use
than recreational to industrial. He concluded however that it was difficult for
him to oppose the water slide because people ]ike Control Data located right
next door were in support. He had a problem looking for ways and means to
oppose the use, when he saw nothing b,t support.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt as {]ouncilman Roth. There had been an extensive
polling of the community, not only the neighbors, but also beyond that and the
percentages indicating the neighbors were happy to have the use located in the
area, 75% was rather impressive. If they did not care, then the land owner
should have the opportunity to deve]~p his recre~tiona! facility as he saw fit.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the report they had from the Police Department
showed that' there bad been a lot of criminal ~ctivity relative to loitering,
vandalism, etc., and she wanted to know how bl~~. Kenny intended to take care of
those prob ] ems.
Mr. Kenny answered that it w~s ,sua]ly they wb~ requested support from the
Police Department which they did get. Most incidents were very minor problems
in nature and by the time the Police Department arrived, the problem was solved.
They had managers and nigbt time supervisors so that there was always a respon-
sible adult on duty. They did not allow "fooling around", loitering in the parking
lot or alcoholic beverages. He reiterated it was the Police Department helping
them when they requested them to do so. He also clarified that he was the
manager of the business, they had an ~perations manager and a night time
supervisor. As well, he lived only five minutes away and those responsible
were instructed to call him or Mrs. Heinkins any time they felt ~t necessary, if
there was any problem they could not
Co~ncilwoman Kaywood asked if the use were to be approved, how that would relate
to anybody else wanting to come tnt~ the area with commercial-recreational use.
Miss Santalahti explained that the neighbor who spoke at the previous meeting
was talking about activities already approved on his property and he was not
expanding. His property was also surrounded on two or three sides by the
Camelot Miniature Golf Course and thn~ it was not an isolated island. In most
cases, they would be establishing brand new businesses on entirely new areas.
80-682
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over future requests to be considered
by future Councils indicating that since such actions were granted to the subject
parcel and they were 300 feet away, the Council would be depriving them of the
same right if approval was not granted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the r~qu[rement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-25! for adoption, reversing the findings
of the City Planning Commission, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2039, subject
to the following Interdepartmental Committee recommendations:
1. That any proposed signing for the waterslide shall comply with all signing
requirements of the RS-A-43,O00 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone unless such
signing is located on the miniature golf course parcel; in which case all
signing shall comply with requirements of the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit to and have approved
by the Planning Connnission revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1215
which reflect the modified land use proposed by this conditional use permit.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
i through 4.
4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-251: A RESOLUTION O1,' TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2039.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was very much opposed
to the mixture of commercial with industrial and also very surprised at the results
of the survey made. The photographs and slides that were shown the last time
depicting the condition of the golf course was evidence that it was really an
oasis and it also had received an Anaheim Beautiful award. She had voted against
the project when it came before the Planning Commission initially. However,
from the way it had been maintained and operated and with none of the neighbors
objecting, but, in fact, lending strong support, she felt in this instance that she
could go along with the project and support it. However, she did not want to see
it called a precedent in any way, shape, or form, and anyone coming in in the future
for something more to expand that commercial-recreation usage, she would be completely
opposed to such a proposal.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of approval.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-251 duly passed and adopted.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - t;ENI']IiAL ['LAN ,\blENDMENT NO. Ii>% AND ~]]R NO. 231: To
consider (i) an amendment: ot the Land Use Element through alternate proposals
of ultimate land uses including, but not limited to llillside Estate, Hillside
Low-Medium, Hillside Medium, General Commercial and (;.metal. Open Space for an
area of approximately 950 acres generally locat~.d s,mth of the Bauer Ranch,
west of the Wallace and Douglass Ranches, northwest and north of the Southern
California Edison easement and east of the pre.~seut Anaheim Hills Planned
Community and (2) an amendment to the Circulation Element through a proposal
to delete Monte Vista Road between Santa Aha Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road
as a ttillside Arterial Highway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-79, recommended
approval of Exhibit "A AMENDED", consisting of the following Land Use designa-
tions and approximate acreages: Hillside Estate density, 273; Hillside Low
density, 126; Hillside Low-Medium density, 113; Hillside Medium density, 203;
General Commercial, 13; and General Open Space, including a park site, 224.
In addition, the City Planning Commission, having considered EIR No. 231 for
the proposed General Plan Amendment for Anaheim Hills Planning Units I, II,
III, IV and V, finds that it is in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and with City and State EIR guidelines and that EIR No. 231
identifies the following potential significant impacts which the said project
could have on the environment: 1) There will be an increase in automobile traffic
which will generate congestion, noise and air pollution in the area. 2) There
will be an increase in the number of students which will create an additional
burden on schools which do not have adequate capacity for them. 3) Grading will
occur on approximately 35% of the project area with consequent alteration of
landforms, disruption to flora and fauna and destruction of specimen trees.
4) Development of the area could have an adverse impact on the biological
resources of Weir Canyon: however, (a) such environmental impacts will be
reduced by compliance with City Codes, Policies and Procedures, and (b) the
project will bring substantial benefits to the Citizens of Anaheim by providing
employment and permitting the development of a high quality residential community
to assist in meeting the demand for housing, and (c) economic and social con-
siderations make it feasible to mitigate all of the impacts identified in the
EIR. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends that the City Council certify
Environmental Impact Report No. 231 and adopt a Statement of Overriding Consi-
derations.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, explained that this was a property-
owner initiated general plan amendment to change the current Hillside Estate
Density Residential, Hillside Low Density Residential, General Open Space and
no land use designation to Hillside Estate 'Density Residential, Hillside Low
Density Residential, Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential, Hillside Medium
Density Residential, General Commercial and General Open Space. The petitioner
proposes to develop a mix of housing densities of Estate, Low-Medium and Medium
Density Residential) and a neighborhood integrated with an open space system
including equestrian trails. It is also the intent of the property owner to
subsequently seek Planned Community zoning to implement proposed land uses.
Mr. Fick then briefed portions of the staff report to the Planning Commission
dated May 5, 1980, regarding Anaheim lttlls Planning Hnits I, II, III, IV and V
and advised that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
80-684
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
General Plan Amendment No. 155 as follows: 1. Area I - Land Use Element -
that "Exhibit A Amended" be adopted subject to a further amendment designating
a park site generally located south/southwest of the commercial site; and further
that a maximum of 2690 residential dwelling units be permitted in this General
Plan Amendment Area. 2. Area II - Circulation Element - that the requested
deletion of Monte Vista Road between Santa Aha Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road
as a Secondary Arterial Highway be withdrawn.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing, asking first to hear from the applicant,
followed by those in support and then those in opposition.
Mr. Dan Salceda, representing Anaheim Hills Inc., land developer of the Planned
Community of Anaheim Hills, stated that the product of the land use entitlement
petition represented several years of hard work by their company, along with staff
and various consultants, technical experts, engineers, land use planners, certi-
fied archeologists, paleontologists and biologists. They had been working on
their plan since 1978 and they were now ready to introduce it to the Council
for their acceptance. They believed the General Plan Amendment (GPA) set the
long-term goals a~d objectives as stated within the Canyon area General Plan
(CAGP) as originally adopted and most recently amended in 1977. They also
believed it necessary for three reasons: (1) In January of 1979, LAFCO deter-
mined that plus or minus 300 acres in the northeast corridor of the property
should be annexed into the City. For that reason, the City now had the zoning
capabilities over that property; (2) consistent with the language expressed in
the Canyon Area General Plan, a variety of housing stock should be available to
the citizens of Anaheim; and (3) because of the most recent cost benefit
analysis done by Anaheim Hills, it would not be a fiscal impact drain to the
City if the GPA were adopted and instead would represent a $5 million benefit.
Mr. Salceda then gave a chronology of what they had done since 1978 working
toward their final plan being proposed today leading to their first meeting
before the Planning Commission on March 24, 1980 (see Planning Commission min-
utes that date). After approximately 2~ to 3 hours of public testimony and
discussion, the Planning Commission mandated a work session for the single
purpose of exploring other studies and other possibilities of land use for the
GPA. They subsequently met with staff almost on a daily basis and on April 21,
1980, they again reappeared before the Planning Commission (see Planning Commission
minutes that date) where after another approximate 3 hours, it was determined that
GPA No. 155 as orizinally proposed, in fact, satisfied the needs of the Planning
Con~nission and was most consistent with the concerns of the City and the CAGP.
Another public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on May 5, 1980
(see Planning Commission minutes that date) where that plan was presented and
after another lengthy hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve
and adopt the General Plan he exhibited today. During the course of the lengthy
public testimony, totalling approximately 9 hours, the issues of archeology,
paleontology and biology were all greatly exposed and in his estimation resolved.
In finality, it was the attitude of staff that the EIR should be certified.
Mr. Salceda then gave an overview of proposed General Plan Amendment No. 155
working from a posted map of the area involved. He emphasized that in areas
I and II adjacent to Weir Canyon, they would have the lowest density, that
80-685
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
being RS-HS-22,000 Estate Density, whereas higher densities would occur at the
arterials of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. He noted that during the
entire time the GPA bad thus far been considered and presented to the general
public, he was not aware of one instance, comment, or concern expressed bv any-
one or any organization regarding the land use in Areas IV and V. Therefore,
he would try to limit the balance of his remarks to Areas I and II and portions
of III.
He then indicated the following from the map which was a blow-up of Planning
Areas I, II and III. The green area indicated all the land to be left in its
natural state, or approximately 75%; the yellow area represented areas that would
be graded to some degree, or 23 to 25%. Of the yellow area to be developed, only
6% would have structures on it.
They were told of concerns relative to the impact of the proposed development on
the Weir Canyon Basin and as a result asked their engineers if there was any
problem relative to the approximate 19 acres of oak stands on or in the Weir
Canyon Basin. The engineers explained that there was a siltation process going
on at present and as the property existed today, there was approximately one
inch of silt being accumulated every year. Because of the watershed being
rerouted, graded, storm drain, additional landscaping and desilting basins,
if the property was developed according to their GPA, it would have a positive
impact and lessen the accumulation of silt in the Weir Canyon Basin. The only
other impact of which they were made aware of was relative to the 6 to 12 roof-
tops that~would be seen when standing at the basin of Weir Canyon looking up
from its floor.
Mr. Salceda then noted the red line traversing the map through the yellow a~d
green areas which represented the watershed. The lower side would be flowing
into the basin, thus appreciating the likelihood of the life of the oaks in the
canyon.
In concluding, Mr. Salceda introduced Dr. Barry Thomas, prefaced by the remarks
that because of the great concern over Weir Canyon and the issues of the flora
and fauna, they determined to find the expert on Weir Canyon. They went to the
typical consultant firms and asked who that might be, and all said Dr. Barry
Thomas, Director for Environmental Studies, Cal State Fullerton and the Admini-
strator pf the Tucker Wildlife Sanctuary in Orange County.
Dr. Barry Thomas, 1651 Bayberry, stated that they did the most thorough study
they could, given the amount of time, ~nd found considerable wildlife in the
area. However, the wildlife they found would be the same type that would be
found after development occurred. He used in his argument the specimens being
found at Oak Canyon, an area surrounded by homes. The Audubon Society did a count
of Oak Canyon and found 58 species of birds, more than was found in Weir Canyon.
He felt with the development as proposed, the situation could actually improve.
Many seemed to equate beauty of the land with good wildlife habitat, but that
was not so. Dr. Thomas then gave a slide presentation showing different areas
of Weir Canyon. He explained which areas were trapped and surveyed, as well as
some of the findings of the survey (See "Flora and Fauna Survey For Anaheim
Hills, Inc., Development Plan For Phase I, II, III, General Plan Amendment No.
155, Addressing The Impacts Upon The Biological Resources of The Project Site
and the Resultant Effects Upon Weir Canyon, Part of Draft EIR No. 231, Vol. 2).
80-686
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Dr. Thomas stated in his professional opinion with the sort of
development proposed, he could go back to the area two years later and find
the same distribution of wildlife species and quite possibly an even greater
number, as well as a greater total number of animals. He then clarifed upon
questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood and the Mayor that he had lived in Anaheim
Hills since 1974; that he had been involved in the original EIR prior to
annexation of the development; he took over the Tucker Wildlife Sanctuary in
1971, and he started trapping in the h~lls and Santa Ana Mountains in 1964. He
also clarified for the Mayor why, if approved, the development could improve
the situation. He explained there were very little food resources for native
wildlife. With development, there would be homes with water which would increase
the wildlife. Also, native plants and bushes would be planted on some of the
slopes and that would equal out food opportunities throughout the year, whereas
now it was cyclical.
Mr. Salceda stated that present in the audience was Mr. Roger Desautls, Principal
and President of Scientific Resource Service, Inc., a certified archeologist who
had spent several days with him and staff in the hills to insure that the EIR
had been satisfied regarding archeological and paleontology. He continued that
in 1978 for the most part, Planning Areas I, II and III, the areas of concern
today, were approved by a GPA by the Orange Planning Commission and City Council.
At that time, there was no opposition to approval of the GPA which essentially
provided for the kind of Estate density being proposed today. In the past few
months, Anaheim Hills had spoken to County, State and Federal agencies regarding
their property and none of the agencies or persons had given any indication that
the property was being considered as a preserve area. At worst, the property
abutting the Irvine Company property was 300 feet through the Edison easement,
plus an additional 100 feet to the structures themselves. Thus, in the worst
case, they were talking about 400 feet to the Irvine property line. Extending
that to the Canyon area, it was 700 feet and in other instances they were talking
in excess of 1,500.
The GPA had given great consideration to the preservation of natural aesthetics
of the area. The ridgelines as best as possible were being preserved. There
was some impact in some of the Estate densities being provided, but no different
than in Tract No. 7587. There were also two major canyons being preserved as is,
along with the two side canyons. It was being done consistent with their concern
for preserving the natural beauty and rural atmosphere of Anaheim Hills.
Regarding density, when the CAGP particular to Anaheim Hills was first adopted,
the maximum density was approximately 21,000 dwelling units and they were asking
that today. Build-out would be less than the original density proposed. Build-
out today was averaging 2.7 units per acre consistent with that build out factor.
At the time of presenting the Planned Community zone to the Planning Commission
and Council, subsequent tentative tract maps would be provided and updated EIR's
would also be provided for staff, citizens and Planning Commission and Council
scrutiny. If at that time, there were still outstanding issues, because of the
"footprints", arterial configuration at that moment in time, terms and conditions,
land use restrictions and open space areas could be lettered to insure the goals
and objectives consistent with the CAGP.
Mr. Salceda then referenced Public Resource Code 20168 which stated .that unless a
substantial change or the possibility of substantial change to the environment
80-687
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
was so indicated, that the EIR shall stand. At this point in time, it was his
belief and the belief of the consultants and the consideration of the Planning
staff, that no empirical data had been brought forth to support that notion and
for that reason, he suggested that the City Council today certify the EIR and
also adopt the General Plan Amendment.
At the Planning Commission hearing, there was one issue that was left somewhat
unresolved relative to the positioning of the park site. As Mr. Fick stated,
the Planning Commission attempted to show the flexibility of the General Plan
by including a legend. It was still the belief and position of Anaheim Hills
that the park site should be located in Deer Canyon. They believed it most
closely tied in with the atmosphere, character and environment of Anaheim Hills.
Secondly, the demographic studies done with the citizenry in Anaheim Hills
suggested that they wanted that park site. Thirdly, it was equidistant not
only to the proposed developments of Areas IV and V, but also the existing
developments to the north, south and east. They proposed the General Plan
Amendment showing Deer Canyon as the park site. They did suggest another al-
ternate site northeast of Deer Canyon. At the same time the Park and Recreation
Department planning staff suggested a park site adjacent to School Site No. 3.
Subsequently, on or about April 14, they sent a letter to Anaheim Hills stating
that they felt the park site should now be located essentially between Planning
Areas IV and V and most recently they were suKgesting the park site be located
adjacent to the commercial site. He petitioned the Council to reconsider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and suggested that the park site be
located in Deer Canyon.
Councilman Roth noted that there had been a few inquiries relative to roads
throughout the canyon, one indicating that there was going to be a six-lane
highway. He asked for an explanation.
Mr. Horst Schor, Senior Vice President, Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated that the
reference to the six-lane highway was a rumor that Weir Canyon Road was to
be built by Anaheim Hills as part of the development proposal and nothing was
further from the truth. There were no plans that would require a six-lane
highway to be built at this time. The County was considering a six-lane freeway,
and they referred to it as the Eastern Transportation Corridor which would be
needed some time in the future to l~nk the R~verside Freeway easterly of Weir
Canyon Road and the Irvine industrial complex. The proposal for that Eastern
Corridor would place it between Weir Canyon and Gypsum Canyon either starting
at Weir Canyon or more likely at the Gypsum Canyon interchange and then southerly
to link the industrial complex in Irvine. At one time, th~ County was qulta
serious about beginning the freeway at the Weir Canyon interchange, but with the
development proposed, it would preclude the construction of the full freeway
interchange at Weir Canyon Road. He understood that the development of the
Bauer Ranch did show a six-lane roadway in a location he pointed to from the
posted map. Depending on the future of the Transportation Corridor, it might
be extended as a four- or six-lane roadway and ultimately tie into the Trans-
portation Corridor.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she understood that the County was willing to take
Deer Canyon as a portion of the 500 acres that Anaheim Hills owed to them for
open space.
80-688
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Salceda explained that they were presently negotiating with the County as
to the acreage that would be dedicated as open space. At this point in time,
Deer Canyon was not a part of those 500 acres.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, if it could be and the County was willing to, would
Anaheim Hills have any objection?
Mr. Salceda answered that the County had two different kinds of easements for
open space, one of a public nature where the County woulj be responsible for
the maintenance and operation, and the second of a simple open space easement,
meaning there would be no public access to the area. The County told them
repeatedly that they were concerned about the cost of open space areas that
they would have to operate and maintain. It was possible that the County would
like Deer Canyon as an open space but the question was, would they have the
wherewithal to make it a public open space area because of cost? His suspi-
cions were that perhaps they would like it as open space, but none of the
citizens of Anaheim or the County would be able to enjoy the uniqueness of Deer
Canyon.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Salceda indicated the cost to the County
for maintenance would be high; Mr. Salceda stated he did not say very high, but
there would be costs and he did not know what the County had in terms of monies
for public open space areas, nor the C~ty.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the County or C~ty were to take Deer Canyon
over as a park, were they talking about at ]east a two-lane road, water, access
from two directions, etc. and, if so, about how much were they speaking of in terms
of money? Mr. Salceda first answered "yes" to the questions posed. Relative to
the latter, they did have some plans, but had not exacted construction costs of
those plans.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked in order for Deer Canyon to remain the beautiful
pristine area it is today, how could that be maintained if roads were installed
and it was declared wide open?
Mr. Salceda stated he would show her the plan they presently had and explained
that they also had another plan that would show the winding type of park that
still allow for the great and vast majority of the oaks to stay standing, while
yet having a park site. He then presented a plan which he posted on the Chamber
wall. He stated it was very conceptual and done merely to show it would be
feasible to provide a park and maintain the attitude and character of Deer
Canyon. He also clarified for Councilman 0verholt that the size of the game
areas proposed totalled approximately 5 acres.
The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone else who wished to speak in support
of the General Plan Amanement.
Camilla Wallace, N~tural tlistory Foundation of Orange County, Newport Beach,
stated her position was in the middle. She presented for the record a letter
dated June 3, 1980 (made a part of the record), explaining the position of the
Foundation specifically requesting paleo mitigation measures to be required of
the developer (see Item 1 and 2 of the reference letter).
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca]if~.,ruia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
She explained further that their concern was not just in Sections I, II and
III, but also IV and V. All of the area was umderta~d by the Puente and
Topanga formations, and they were known to be quite fossiliferous. The
Foundation was not going to say anything for or against the development, but
she emphasized if the development was approved, that conditions be placed on
the developers requiring them to car~-y out the mitigati~m measures as requested
in their letter.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to General Plan Amendment
No. 155 and Environmental Impact Report No. 231.
Mr. Hal Thomas, Executive Director of the Environmental Coalition of Orange
County, stated that he had been asked to MC the presentations to follow. Mr.
Jeff Frock, National Audubon Society, Star Ranch, a biologist, was going to
speak regarding the biological resources of the impact area in Weir Canyon;
representatives were present from the Native American Organization, Mr. Joe
O'Campo and Forest Wright, their legal attorney, as well as Sea and Sage
Audubon and the Committee To Save Weir Canyon.
Mr. Thomas first questioned whether the posted map was a before-after grading
drainage map and if the red line was representative of the watershed boundary.
He also asked if the Estate lots continued down the hillsides from the pad areas;
from the audience, a representative from Anabeim Hills indicated that the map
was after-grading, ;~ud that the Estate lots did not continue down the hillsides
from the pad areas.
Mr. Thomas stated, as he understood then, the map was after-grading and the red
line did show the watershed boundary. He expressed his concern about that line
and felt that in looking at the map, it could be surmised that tbere was not much
impact involved. He noted that the watershed lines were from peak to peak, and
working from the map, because it was after-grading, he questioned several areas
shown indicating that the runoff would ultimately flow into Weir Canyon and
that situation was repeated over and over again. He contended that the line
was not an accurate representation of the watershed and watershed impacts,
and that kind of misinformation concerned him.
The following people then spoke in opposition and the below-listed testimony
contained the highlights of their concerns.
Mr. Jeffrey Frock, National Audubon Society, Staff Biologist in Southern
California and Resident Manager of Star Ranch Sanctuary, first read from a
prepared statement:
Tbe National Audubon Society believes that Weir Canyon, including the areas
in question, constitute wildlife areas of critical natural importance, and they
were vitally concerned for its protection. Weir Canyon, as a representative of
former natural Southern California foothills, represented remarkable concentra-
tions of wildlife and they were particularly concerned with birds of prey and
saving the high populations of hawks and owls. We now have before us the change
to consider in the course of development a balance between community progress
and wildlife protection, and it is the Society's viewpoint that these two can
and should .go hand in hand. It is not our business to oppose development.
80-690
City..Hall~ Anaheim, Cali. fornia - COUNCIL MIb~.~TES - J~nc ~, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Frock continued that relative to Dr. Thomas' pr~¢~ntation, it was true from
one viewpoint that wildlife population would benefit in suburban situations, but
from a more objective viewpoint, there was a loss of wildlife in what was form-
erly natural habitat. That was their concern about Weir Canyon--it did repre-
sent a naturally balanced wildlife population. Dr. Thomas mentioned the problem
of fleas with the wood rats, and it probably did represent an unbalanced condition,
but he did not see the connection that the development into those areas might
alleviate the wood rats and fleas. There needed to be some research continued
in the area, more environmental assessment particularly in the biological
resources and wildlife resources. Therefore, they were suggesting that the
General Plan Amendment go back to the Planning Commission for further consi-
deration and stndy.
Other concerns were: Natural wildlife communities, like human communities, did
not exist well as islands and they required large areas of contiguous habitat
for buffering the negative impacts of the surrounding development, environmental
change, and for providing space for mobility and genetic exchange of species.
The incremental loss of these large areas would have an incremental toll on
wildlife populations and the quality of the environment in that region. The
viability of the Weir Canyon ecosystem and its naturally controlled wildlife
population required forthright and responsible protection by public land
planners and administrators. They felt that thus far, fair and objective con-
siderations to the biological values had not been made. Weir Canyon deserved
protection and hopefully, as an Orange County Regional Park. If the County,
although willing, was not able to assume stewardship and ownership at this time,
the National Audubon Society was willing to do so, and they hereby submitted
their willingness to take management of that area.
The Mayor noted that Mr. Frock seemed to be at odds with the testimony given by
Dr. Thomas. He thereupon asked Mr. Frock to share his personal involvement in
the particular area, or Oak Canyon, Deer Canyon, Gypsum Canyon or other adjacent
areas.
Mr. Frock answered that he had not had the privilege of being on the Weir Canyon
site. His experiences had been intensive at the Star Canyon Ranch and Bell Canyon.
He had no experience in the areas questioned by the Mayor.
The Mayor asked Mr. Frock, if the Council were to do as he asked, recommend to
the Planning Commission that they take another look at the situation consistent
with the concerns expressed, and the concerns raised did contradict the testimony
received by Dr. Thomas, what would his recommendation be at that point.
Mr. Frock answered that the area be included into the possibility of a Regional
Park. The 1,000 or 500 acres which were mentioned earlier were, in a sense, owed
to the County for dedication by the developer.
Kathy Nelson, 9091 Holder, Apt. 33, Cypress, along with an assistant, then gave
a slide presentation entitled, "Weir Canyon--Can It Be Saved?" which gave an
overview of the Weir Canyon ecosystem also including portions of the Anaheim
Hills project which was their concern. She noted that in one of the slides
of Anaheim Hills below the reservoir was located in archeological site, the
80-691
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
extent of which had not yet been determined, where bedrock mortars were located.
She was surprised there was no mention of bedrock mortars even though the EIR
done in 1975 for the Santa Ana Lateral Water Quality Project mentioned the
mortar sites occurring in that area. Presently, Anaheim did not have a cul-
tural resource management plan. The particular site was viewed by the State
Office of Historic Preservation several weeks ago and it was likely that it
would be incorporated within the boundaries of the National Register nomin-
ation which included other portions of the Weir Canyon area. She also pointed
out that merely designating an archeological site as an open space area did not
address how the site was going to be protected, and it was not addressed in the
EIR.
Weir Canyon was formerly recognized as ~ unique ecosystem on the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services, an ecosystem program also presently being considered for the
National Register to be preserved as n~ archcological region. It was important
that the area be preserved as a system not just from the biological point of view
but also an archeological point of view. All of the sites within the area
were interrelated and the system as a whole needed to be preserved ridge line
to ridge line.
One of the slides showed an altar stone located adjacent to a spring beginning
on the Anaheim Hills property. The site was considered of religious sacred
importance to the Juaneno Indian band and the spring was integral in the mean-
ing of the site. The places of worship for Indian populations traditionally
were out of doors where they considered the life gi:ing spirits of the earth to
be especially strong. The site depicted in the slide was such a place, and the
spring had as much importance to the meaning of the site as the stone itself.
The EIR did not address how the grading, erosion and sedimentation from such
a project would impact the spring sit(', nor did it address how management of the
site would be accomplished, i.e., the ,ncontrolled human element going into a
sacred place. The balance of the slides depicted vegetation and the animals
to be found in the Canyon.
Mr. Tom Davey, 607 West Broadway, Santa Ana, Fish and Game Commissioner, Third
Supervisorlal District, explained that the Iower half of Weir Canyon was in that
District. The Fish and Game Commission, taking cognizance of the numerous planning
efforts surrounding Weir Canyon, not just the GPA under consideration today, made
the determination that a faunal survey for the Weir Canyon basin was necessary
before the impact of any planning developments adjacent or in Weir Canyon could
be determined. He contended that Dr. Thomas' wildlife component of the EIR did
not directly assess the wildlife in the basin of Weir Canyon itself, but only
the wildlife on the Anaheim Hills property. For that reason, the Fish and Game
Commission about two months ago allocated $8,000 for a faunal survey of Weir
Canyon to be conducted. A month ago, the Board of Supervisors directed that
the survey be incorporated into the Environmental Management Agency's Park Road
Study for the Weir Canyon area. Another concern of the County was the ongoing
negotiations for the 500-acre park dedication. It would be his personal deter-
mination that the County's options in getting park land dedicated of regional
quality as called for in the original Agricultural Preserve Agreement in 1974,
would be lessened hy the approval of the CPA today.
80-692
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Davey suggested that the GPA be returned to the Planning Commission for
deletion of the 25 to 30 lots that encroached upon the ridgeline of Weir Canyon
until the Fish and Game Commission Faunal Survey was completed. They could
then make an adequate determination of what the impacts would be on the basin
of Weir Canyon itself, if the GPA were approved. He did not believe the EIR
addressed adequately how the runoff would degrade the habitat of the Weir Canyon
basin itself, which was the more critical question, rather than the impact of the
development of the Anaheim Hills property which was not the primary wildlife
resource in the area.
The Mayor then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Davey wherein he (Davey) con-
firmed that he was not the official spokesman for the County of Orange.
The Mayor then asked Mr. Davey, assuming Weir Canyon were to become a regional
park and assuming the County would take it over, would it be his recommendation
as a Fish and Game Commissioner, that it not be opened to the public.
Mr. Davey answered "no", but that the recommendation would be that it be a
wildlife regional park similar to the Ronald Casper Regional Park in the South
County not only because of the delicate ecosystem in Weir Canyon, but also
because the County had tremendous constraints on its park maintenance budget at
the moment. One of the concerns the County had in its negotiations for the 500
acres with Anaheim Hills was the very question of who was going to maintain the
acreage.
He then confirmed for the Mayor that the correct term would be a wilderness
regional park and that relative to public access, it would have such access, but
with restrictions. For instance, the public could not play tennis or baseball
in such a park. The access that the public would have was strictly circumscribed
so that there were no undue impacts on the naturalness of the park. They would
be required to stay on certain trails in the park so that as an example, they
could not wander into vital nesting areas.
Mr. Sam Berry, Costa Mesa, immediate Past President of Sea and Sage Audubon Society
and Vice President of the Save Weir Canyon Community, asked that the Council recon-
sider and send back to the Planning Commission the General Plan Amendment on Areas
I, II and III. The central reason for their request was that they did not feel
the flora and fauna part of the EIR really addressed Weir Canyon. It was only
mentioned one time in the beginning, and it was not specifically mentioned at
all in the whole of the EIR. Their concern was with Weir Canyon and not other
parts of the Anaheim Hills development. He felt that there had been a long time
effort on the part of Anaheim Hills to not say they were going into Weir Canyon.
If today they could get that fact established, they would be making progress.
They had letters on record from Anaheim Hills to different people saying that
they had no plans for Weir Canyon. He believed they did because anything over
the ridge line was Weir Canyon. He came by that opinion by a method of asking,
what is an ecosystem, and in this case, It was Weir Canyon.
Mr. Hal Thomas then stated there were several questions--(1) is the project in
Weir Canyon? blost planning agencies defined a canyon as its watershed bound-
aries. If they could establish the watersh~.~d boundaries, they would ha~e a
project inside the canyon. (2) Would the proposal have an adverse effect on
the environment? He referred to and quoted a portion of Page 9c of the staff
80-693
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL blINUTE5 - June 3, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
report dated March 24, 1980 as follows: "Grading will occur on approximately
35% of the project area with the consequent alteration of land forms, disrup-
tion to flora and fauna and destruction of specimen trees.
Development of the area could have an adverse impact on the biological resources
of Weir Canyon." Staff was saying there would be an adverse impact. (3) Are
there any economic and socially feasible ways of mitigating the project? They
had sent to the Planning Commission and hoped it was incorporated in the record,
that there was an opportunity to use transfer of development rights to achieve
an economic return for the land for the landowner commensurate with the original
General Plan request and to protect the public resources being discussed--wild-
life and public access. There was also the alternative of acceptance of the
dedication of the 500 acres in lieu of taxes for early release from the Agri-
cultural Preserve and thus, it was not a gift. Those were two proposals they
were making to the planning process which they were asking the Council to
consider, or to consider returning the matter to the Planning Commission for
rereview of those proposals.
In concluding, Mr. Thomas stated that the economic and social feasibility issue
was the dollar issue. He also referred to and read a portion of Page 8e of
the staff report (May 5, 1980) relative to the negative cash flow involved.
"Therefore it is City staff's opinion, based on the analysis submitted by the
Anaheim Hills, Inc., economic consultant, that both alternatives I and II will
represent a negative cash flow to the City through time based on present and poten-
tial litigation." Thus, they were looking at a proposal which had a negative
economic payback. They were saying it was not economically viable to the City,
and staff was backing up that contention, whereas they considered their proposal
to be economically viable.
Mr. Forest Wright, attorney with California Indian Legal Services, 1860 South
Escondido Boulevard, Escondido, representing the Juaneno Indian band, stated
that they had previously submitted comments for the administrative record con-
cerning the project. His main points were as follows: His clients felt that
the archeological section in the EIR failed to provide sufficient factual basis
for conclusions that the report entered on the record, i.e., that there was no
significant archeology within the subject property. Not tying the identified
sites that had been noted on the property into the existing archeological site
complex existing on the adjacent property, which bliss Nelson referred to earlier,
they felt any conclusion on behalf of the Council affirming the conclusions of
the Planning Commission would be erroneous. The basis for his clients' argument
with Mr. Decitals was that there was no methodological discussion and no record
of a survey of existing archeological regions. Such a record survey should be
conducted and could be done easily at minimal cost and appropriate to include
in anything which was to become a part of the record.
The Planning Commission established a mechanism for a dialogue between the persons
concerned with the subject property and the project's proponents. UnfortunatelY,
neither himself, nor his client, had any s~gnificant input into that process. They
felt it appropriate that the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission or
80-694
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
that some other means be provided for entering those concerns or dealing with
the proponents. His clients offered to provide the expert archeological person
to conduct the survey, the problem being the property was private, and there was
no access provided for individuals other than the proponents. They felt that
some discnssion of the effects of the project on the archeological site complex
on the adjacent property was necessary. To postpone the matter to a later date
at whi~-h time clements of the County Master Plan Park or arterial highway would
be implemented would be inappropriate, and it should be considered at this time.
Mr. R. A. Bender, attorney, Huntington Beach, representing the Audubon Environ-
mental Coalition, presented philosophical arguments regarding the Coalition's
opposition. They were looking at growth vs. the natural environment, and they
were attempting to go too fast and build too rapidly. He questioned what would
happen when they did utilize 26% of the property, what would happen to Weir
Canyon and the silt in the runoff. He maintained that the balance of nature
sbould not be disturbed. The argument was all about Weir Canyon. Looking at
the EIR and all the other data and listening to all the data introduced today,
he did not think that the Council had enough information to make a decision.
He felt the Council should deny the EIR and reject the GPA because they were
lacking information. Those who presented information in opposition could not
go into the property because there was "no trespassing" on it. Everything that
hsd been shown by those, other than Anaheim Hills people, had been taken by tres-
passers, but nonetheless, it did show what was on the property and it should be
protected.
Councilman Bay noted that the reason they had to trespass in order to get infor-
mation was due to the fact that someone owned the property. He was trying to
make sense of the continuing philosophica]~ argument of the environmentalists who
did not own that property and who did not work to gain it. He was trying to pick
up on the Audubon's philosophy that they should have more to say about how that
privately-owned property should be utilized than the people who owned it.
Mr. Bender countered that a man made an investment for one reason, to make a
profit. Sometimes they would lose the investment and this was one of those
times.
Councilman Bay asked if the property should be used for the housing needs of
people or should they save it for the birds; Mr. Bender indicated it should be
saved for the birds. Councilman Bay did not agree.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Bender, since he seemed to be very familiar with the area,
what his experience was in that area, not in Weir Canyon because it was private,
but Oak Canyon, Deer Canyon and Gypsum Canyon; Mr. Bender stated that he had never
looked at the other canyons although he had seen them from the air, he had never
been in them.
Ferne Coben, 818642 Dodge Avenue, Sa~t~ Aha, stated that she was Chairperson of
the Committee to Save Weir Canyon, which represented Sea and Sage Audubon and
a number of other organizations. She stated she had tbousands of petitioners
who had indicated their desire to have Weir Canyon as a County wilderness park.
80-695
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
She wanted to establish the fact that the County had designated Weir Canyon as
a potential regional park and viewed the area as an extension of Irvine Park.
Sea and Sage was a support group for Oak Canyon Nature Center and if it were
not for Weir Canyon, the nature center might change. She stated their prime
purpose for speaking to the Council was to enter into the record the March 3,
1980 letter to Ron Thompson of the Planning Department from which she read
paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 (see letter dated March 3, 1980 to Mr. Thompson from
Kenneth E. Smith, Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency, Advance Planning Division, received March 7,
1980 and previously made a part of the record contained in draft EIR No. 231,
comments and responses--General Plan Amendment Planning Units I, II, III, IV
and V). She felt that the boundaries of Weir Canyon as a regional park were
yet to be established. The Council's decision today would affect what the
boundaries would be.
She noted that when speaking of property rights, in 1974, the property rights
of the citizens of Orange County were established by the Anaheim Hills agreement
with the County for the dedication of the ]and taken out of the Agricultural
Preserve. Thu~, they did have property rights specifically in the Anaheim Hills
area. They wanted the dedication to be in Weir Canyon and the County wanted
that as well, since it would provide the keystone for land for the park.
She urged the Council to listen to them and to take their time. They did not
have to make a decision today and they should get more evidence.
Mr. Joe O'Campo, ~108 East Fourth Street, Sancta Ana, Vice Spokesman, Juaneno
Indian band, stat~d they wanted to be able to maintain Weir Canyon in its present
state and as his forefathers remember~d it. The encroachment was definitely in
Weir Canyon. They should be sensitive to how the Indians felt about the area.
Their spiritual needs were involved as evidenced by the altar stone that was
shown earlier in the slide presentation. There was nothing like it in the area
for hundreds of miles. They no longer had any ]and. He urged the Council to
look at the matter carefully. Big money was involved and he himself was in the
real estate business, but they should also consider the needs of others. They
were in a position to either destroy or help contain nature as it now existed.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:55 P.M.)
Muruga Hiagel, 1410 Harmony Lane, Fullerton, stated that the very traditional
question everyone asked was where would their children live, but they must also
consider what they would leave their children. By building those few houses in
Weir Canyon, they would be destroying their heritage. She asked if the develop-
ment profit to be gained by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., was really worth sacri-
ficing something that was priceless. They had heard other alternatives to having
those few houses in the Weir Canyon area. She begged the Council to consider
those.
Mr. Tom Davey then stated he wanted to explicitly point out what he thought was
the most .adverse impact on the basin itself. The ridge lots were planned for
equestrian estate.~ and the open space desi?~nation extended close to the basin of
80-696
Qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
the canyon. It was the impact of the horse manure and the use of the land
below the watershed that was going to be disruptive to the basin of Weir
Canyon. He asked why all of the areas (which he pointed to from the map)
needed to be graded. He noted that a substantial portion below the develop-
ment was going to be graded which was not brought out before.
Mr. $chor answered that there were only some 25 lots in that area that would
have the opportunity to keep horses and the keeping of horses was not permitted
on the ridgeline itself. As far as drainage, the red line did represent drainage
after development. The drainage from the area to the north of the ridge line would
be conveyed by a storm drain system either to be built or already in place which
would take drainage to the Santa Ana River and away from the Santiago Creek area.
The most easterly portion in yellow as questioned by Mr. Davey needed to be graded
because they were going to build houses and roads there. The terrain was such
that it would require grading to accommodate those facilities.
Dr. Glory Ludwick, Douglass Ranch, neighbor to Anaheim Hills, stated they must
distinguish between horse manure and steer manure. They had a great deal of
steer on the Douglass Ranch and there were steer all over contaminating the
canyon. She did not think they had done any harm and also did not feel that
25 equestrian estates would ruin the canyon.
The Mayor then asked to hear from staff relative to park s~tes.
Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, stated he would like to address the park
proposal and indic:~te to the Council that they had studied the issue for in
excess of a ye~r. lie and staff person;~lly had several tours of Deer Canyon.
They reviewed the matter with the l'ark and Recreation Commission, the Planning
Commission, and Planning staff so that their recommendation as contained in the
Planning Commission report to the City Council was not a precipitous one, but
one that was submitted only after giving it a great deal of consideration. When
they looked at the proposal by Anaheim ltills to dedicate Deer Canyon to the City
for a park, the first reaction was that the access to that area was poor. There
was also significant erosion in the hi]] and canyon area. They reviewed the
proposal with Fire and Police and both expressed major concerns about Police
and Fire protection, particularly with large numbers of people going into that
canyon area. They did have an opportunity to review the conceptual plan that
was shown earlier after they requested a copy of it. They estimated that kind
of development could cost in excess of $2 million just to develop without con-
sidering on-going manintenance obligations to the City.
In the proposal, Anaheim tlills did indicate that there was some flat usable
open space that ceuld he preserved, yet there was no parking access and no
mention that the City would be obligated to pay sewer sanitation charges costing
$80,000 to $I00,000 or that the City would have to pay a water assessment fee
up front in excess of $125,000. There was in excess of 80 acres of open space
in the hill and canyon area now that was undeveloped and the need was for flat
usable open space. The location they proposed, and that was accepted unanimously
by the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission, was at the inter-
section of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue. There was good access, adequate
on-street parking, access for Police and'Fire and it provided for a flat usable
park in an area of high density population. In considering a compromise, they
80-697
q~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
looked at the densities proposed by the General Plan Amendment which would bring
7,000 people into the area. Under the City's park dedication ordinance, they
would be required to give 14 acres of land. The City had been willing to com-
promise by accepting in excess of 5 acres and using the balance of that in
money to develop the park. The principles employed were consistent with those
used in the negotiations relative to the Bauer Ranch, an identical situation.
They had seriously attempted to negotiate with the County and discuss with them
the feasibility of preserving Deer Canyon in open space and felt there was a
possibility that could be accomplished. The County was interested in tying into
a regional trail system through Deer Canyon which could be done with very minimal
cost to them in terms of a maintenance program, since they would maintain the trails.
When looking at the significant capital improvement cost in terms of erosion
problems and the developmental cost of Deer Canyon, along with all the other
problems, they had an opportunity in th~s GPA to do an excellent planning job
and preserve for the people of the hill and canyon area some flat usable land
wbich was particularly needed. They felt it would be consistent with planning
principles not only employed in Anaheim, but also the County of Orange, State
of California, and the Nation at large. He recommended that the Council give
favorable consideration to the recommendation which was unanimously approved by
the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Mayor asked to hear from Anaheim Hills in response to the remarks made by
Mr. Ruth confining their remarks to the question of a park site.
Mr. Sa lceda stated that the Planning Commissioners recognized the general location
of the park site symbol and the purpose was to reaffirm that the location was of
a general nat,re. In the very recent past, the Parks Department had suggested
three sites. It was possible that they and even Anaheim Hills next week or next
month, when they learned more particularly of the development plans, that there
would be a fifth, sixth or seventh site. Anaheim Hills still believed that
Deer Canyon could be a feasible park site and recognized that the onus and
burden was on them to provide adequate access and that there were some develop-
ment costs. The grading for the initial park site location suggested ended up
being economically unworkable.
Anaheim Hills was a very unique place. There were many ordinances within the
City that spoke to hillside development. Consistent with that was the possibility
that the park sites may also require a different configuration or character. He
believed they could work out some of the flat land park site requirements with
joint agreements with the Orange Unified School District and Anaheim.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Salceda stated that Anaheim Hills recognized
that they would be responsible for the roads, access and development of a park
site. She wanted to know the amount of money about which they were speaking.
Mr. Salceda answered that was something that could be negotiated or worked out
witb staff. He could not speak to that because he did not have the authority
to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that area, Deer Canyon, must be preserved exactly as
is. To put a park below the estate lots would pose two problems. The residents
of those lots would not use the park, and they would also resent the public being
there.
80-698
City Ha~l.~ A~a~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3~. 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated that there had been somewhere in excess of 18 hours of
public debate, discussion, input and testimony on the project. Relative to
the EIR, many questions had been raised by the Audubon Society, and the other
societies represented, on what they felt might be inadequacies. On the other hand,
they received testimony from what he considered expert witnesses regarding the
adequacy of the EIR, along with the Planning Commission's approval and recommen-
dation that it be approved. He felt that because of what they had heard today
from Dr. Thomas, considering the time invested and his unique knowledge of the
area, in comparison to those who offered countering testimony with little or no
experience in the area, that Dr. Thomas was probably more nearly correct in his
opinion. Therefore, he did not find difficulty with the EIR measuring up to the
California Environmental Quality Act. He was prepared to accept and certify it,
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Relative to the Land Use Element, as far as what they had been told regarding
densities, it was consistent when put in perspective of the entire Nohl Ranch
area, the planning process for which began in the early seventies. If correct
that the 21,O00-unit density was what they could expect, they had experienced
density which was less than that.
Relative to the subject property, when considering that 23 to 25% of the property
would be graded, with 75% left in a natural state, but it may not measure up to
the standards of some, he felt it had a balance that would provide a high quality
living environment for those future residents of the City.
Relative to the concern over Weir Canyon, be was supportive of open space and
would continue to support that. It was the responsibility of the County to
come forth relative to their position on Weir Canyon and make it known,. He
did not feel that the development of the estate lots on the easterly portion
of the GPA would impose any great danger to Weir Canyon.
Relative to the park site, he shared staff's concern because he thought there
had been some feeling in the past that perhaps the City had not received a fair
shake in flat land park sites to be specific. However, this was a general plan
and it was just that, subject to refinements and specific plans. He believed
it could be kept general and, therefore, he was not in a rush to make a decision
in favor of Deer Canyon or entirely for all flat land. If he had to make a
decision today, he would opt for the best of both worlds, the maintenance of
Deer Canyon park by the County with public access into the canyon, not to con-
duct baseball games or soccer games, but to relax and enjoy the environment.
They should seek some flat land ball fields and soccer fields. He did not know
what the final resolution of that would be, but he felt they could have both
and should not attempt to decide that today. He would prefer to see Anaheim
Hills go back to the bargaining table with staff to hammer out an agreement.
Adequate time should be provided but they should not hold the door open for
Anaheim Hills to come in with specific development plans, more specifically
tract maps, until the question was resolved. Perhaps a period of nine months
might be appropriate time to ask staff and Anaheim Hills to fina]ize the location
of a park and work out the improvement costs, while at the same time insuring that
process be concl,ded prior to the submlss~on of any tentative tract maps.
80-699
City Hall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 231 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact
Report No. 231, having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the
City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines
of 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 Overholt, that Environmental Impact Report No.
231 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.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the park site was a part
of that motion.
Mayor Seymour answered that as far as he knew, the park site was not determinate
on the EIR; from the audience, a staff member answered that it was not.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION - LAND USE ELEMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the Land Use
Element amendment of the General Plan, as recommended, with the additional stip-
ulation and requirement that the park site remain general in nature; within a
nine-month period, staff and Anaheim Hills to confer to establish a specific
park site and specific development and maintenance costs and report to the
Council their recommendation, such report and recommendation to be submitted
to the Council prior to the submission of any tentative tract maps in the area.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in 1970 she and the ~ayor
were on the Planning Commission at the time Anaheim Hills initially came forth. There
were some "bloody" battles, and the amount of density that the initial plan
talked about was over the denial of the Planning Commission. That Council
approved a much higher density at the time. The intent was that the hill and
canyon area was going to be completely different and that the people were not
going to be requiring the flat usable land required in the rest of the City.
In fact, it had not worked out that way. There were probably more children
in Anaheim Hills than the rest of the City. The demand for soccer and football
fields was tremendous and she reiterated the situation had not worked out as they
thought. There was a need for the kind of passive beautiful parks such as Oak
Canyon Park with the Nature Center, but they would not take the place of flat
usable land. She would be very much opposed to allowing the opportunity to go
by now without knowing where they were ~oin~ to ~ct 5 or 6 acres that would take
care of the needs of all the residents in that area. If they did not put a
mark somewhere, they were not going to get it.
A brief discussion then followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood
wherein the Mayor stated he felt with the added condition that the issue of a
park site be settled before approval of any tentative tract maps, that they
were adequately protected.
Councilman Bay then asked the Planning Director if, when the Planning Commission
approved the GPA and sent it on, was there a stipulation on the park site and
was the Planning Commission set on what they thought the park site should be?
City. Hall, Anaheim~ (]a]ifornia - COUNCIL MINU*]i~if~ ..... -- ~.~,~._~. .... _,'~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Planning Director Ron Thompson answered "yes". Fi~e PJanning Commission felt
that the location indicated on the amended exhibit depicted a park site other
than in Deer Canyon which was in and around the area where the most population
density was going to be and that was the key.
Councilman Bay stated he felt strongly that even though he liked the b~yor's
idea of giving time for negotiations, he did feel that the GPA would not be
before them today with the Planning Commission approval without their ruling
out Deer Canyon as an in lieu park. He asked if the Mayor would amend his
present motion ruling out Deer Canyon as park land and that the negotiations
start at a point where Deer Canyon was not to be considered and move ahead from
there.
~e Mayor stated his motion would remove the park from where it was designated
and it would then be in a footnote leaving ~t very flexible and general. He
felt at this particular junction, it woold be a serious mistake to rule out
entirely Deer Canyon, thus foreclosing the opportunity to insure that the public
had any access to that beautiful canyon, lie was willing to mandate flat land,
but not to preclude Deer Canyon.
Councilman Roth agreed and felt that the Mayor was trying to convey the necessity
for a mix of sites, retaining part of Deer Canyon, and then a portion of flat
land in conjunction with the school s~te.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt it should be a general direction and he favored
having flat land parks in the area. Mr. Salceda indicated an intention on the part
of Anaheim Hills to work with staff to, in turn, work the matter out. To tie their
hands by indicating that Deer Canyon was not to be considered in any event, would
not accomplish the result he hoped would be accomplished, to come to an agreement
that wonld be acceptable to all.
Mr. Salceda stated that presently, Planning Areas I and II were already within
the park service district and they were very soon going to be submitting some
tentative tract maps for estate lots probably within the next 30 to 45 days in
those areas (I and II). He pointed out that Mr. Ruth was concerned with high
density areas IV and V.
The Mayor stated he had no problem in applying the condition to Areas III, IV and
V only, excloding I and II.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amending the last sentence as
follows: "Such report and recommendation to be submitted to the Council prior
tO the submission of any tentative tract maps on Areas III, IV and V only,
excluding Areas I and II." Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION - WITHDRAWAL OF CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT: Councilman Seymour moved
to approve withdrawal of the proposed Circulation Element amendment. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-252, approving General Plan Amend-
ment No. 155, Exhibit "A AMENDED", with the same stipulations as attached to the
approval of the Land Use Element. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-701
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 3, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-252: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 155,
EXHIBIT "A AMENDED."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-252 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Mr. Fick explained theft staff had been working with Orange
County and Anaheim Hills, and the Planning Commission did specifically recom-
mend to the City Council that correspondence be forwarded to the County regarding
acquisition of open space easement acr~s in Deer Canyon. He asked if the Council
wanted staff to forward correspondence to the County to that effect.
The Mayor answered that they should inform the County of the action taken today
and he encouraged them to participate with the C~unty and Anaheim Hills to
resolve the matter.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Tuesday, June 10, 1980 at
10:00 a.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:40 P.M.
ERTS, CITY CLERK