1978/04/18 78-421
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth, Thom and Overholt
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: John Roche
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend John K. Saville of St. Michael's Episcopal Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
127: GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 11~ 1978 - CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-22, City Clerk Linda D. Roberts submitted the
following Certificate of Canvass of Returns of the General Municipal Election
held in the City of Anaheim April 11, 1978, conveying the number of votes
given at each precinct, and the number of votes given in the City to persons
voted for, and the respective offices for which said persons were candidates,
and the number of votes for and against the measure:
CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS
I, ~inda D. Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, duly authorized by Resolution No. 78R-22, adopted by the City on
the 10th day of January, 1978, do hereby certify that I have canvassed the returns
of the regular General Municipal Election held in said City on the llth day of
April, 1978, and find that the number of votes given at each precinct and the
number of votes given in the City to persons voted for, the respective offices for
which said persons were candidates, and for and against the measure were as follows:
78-422
"EXHIBIT A"
78-423
78-424
-I
78-425
78-426
78-427
78-428
I t
· ,, '?IZ
78-42 9
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April. 18~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Pursuant to said canvass, it was determined that candidates Miriam Kaywood, E.
Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., and John Seymour received the highest number of votes
cast, and were elected members of the City Council of said City for the full
term of four years, and that John Seymour received the highest number of votes
cast for Mayor, and was elected Mayor for the full term of two years.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-131 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-231: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENEI~kL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY
OF ANAHEIM ON THE llTH DAY OF APRIL, 1978, DECLARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH
OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-231 duly passed and adopted.
DECLARATION OF ASSETS - PROJECT ALPHA: The City Clerk reported that Councilman
elect E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., filed a written declaration pertaining to interest
in real and personal property within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Alpha
in conformance with the requirements of Section 33130 of the State Health and
Safety Code. (Copy on file in the City Clerk's Office and presented to Council
Members.)
OATH OF OFFICE: The Oath of Allegiance for public office was administered by the
Cit~' Clerk to elected Council Members Miriam Kaywood, E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr.,
and Mayor John Seymour, and they were presented with Certificates of Election.
PRESENTATIONS MADE TO OUTGOING MAYOR W. J. BILL THOM: Mayor Seymour presented
several expressions of appreciation to outgoing Mayor Thom including the symbolic
replica of the Big "A" scoreboard.
Orange County Supervisor Ralph Clark made a presentation in the form of a proclama-
tion to Mayor Thom on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the Mayor's contribu-
tion to the County and the City of Anaheim during his term of office.
Mr. Thom expressed his thanks to the electorate for giving him the privilege and
pleasure of his 8 year term of office on the Anaheim City Council. He also thanked
the. City staff for their assistance during that time and wished the Council well.
PROPOSED COUNCIL TEAM APPROACH IN HANDLING CITY MATTERS: Mayor Seymour first
invited each Council Member to express any sentiments they wished at the outset
and start of the new administration and Council makeup. Relative to the new
Council and his role in it, he stated it was his desire to do whatever he could
to bring the Council together as a teem where healthy dissent would be allowed
whether amongst the Council or expressed from a member of the public. The by-word
of his hope for the new administration would be to reinstill and recultivate in the
community a new pride in the City, not only in the physical accomplishments and the
78- 430
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
growth of the City, but also more importantly a pride in one another as human
beings. As to a specific plan, the Mayor referred to an already existing approach
to problem solving that worked well, such as in Redevelopment, wherein a steering
committee was appointed, an audit committee used in the Arthur Young Audit, and
more recently, the approach used in the selection of, and now supervision of, a
CPA firm to perform the City's financial audit wherein two Council Members were
involved in that steering committee. The new approach would involve the Mayor
and one Council Member being responsible for the research, time spent, investigation
and communication responsibilities of a particular area of either expertise or
interest within the City whether it be Redevelopment, Neighborhood Preservation,
Utilities or other areas. Thus, it would be a matter of taking all of the respon-
sibilities of the whole Council, as well as the responsibilities of the Mayor's
Office, and share the role and commitment necessary between the Mayor's Office
and individual Council persons; thereby, each would become somewhat more expert
in the particular area of selection and subsequently report to the entire Council
on those matters. Without any commitment as to agreement and acceptance of those
recommendations from the steering committee involved, there would be at ]_east the
respect of listening closely to the viewpoint expressed. Such plan would do two
things: (1) permit the City Council to work as a team and, (2) afford over the
long term, better service to the citizens because of their individual sharing of
responsibilities that faced the City.
In concluding, the Mayor stated unless he heard objections at present, he would be
hopeful of bringing the aforementioned program back to the Council on next Tuesday
after he had an opportunity in the interim of discussing the matter with each
Council person individually.
PRESENTATION TO MAYOR SEYMOUR: Mrs. Keith Bird, speaking to Mayor Seymour, stated
that he had shown concern for the homeowners and residents of the City of Anaheim
as a City Councilman, and they were certain he would continue to do so as Mayor.
He was an inspiration to the young and had shown security and comfort to the elderly.
He generated warmth and pride, and people felt warm toward him. In wanting to con-
vey those feelings, therefore, Mrs. Bird painted Mayor Seymour's portrait which was
unveiled and presented to him. Mayor Seymour expressed his appreciation.
REORGANIZATION OF THE COUNCIL - MAYOR PRO TEM: In accordance with Council Po]icy
No. 111, this being the appropriate date and time, Councilman Kott nominated
Councilman Don Roth as Mayor Pro Tem of the City.
Councilman Overholt nominated Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood as Mayor Pro Tem of
the City.
A vote was taken on the nomination of Councilman Roth and failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour
A vote was taken on the second nomination and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth
78-43 1
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~. 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood was declared Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Anaheim.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"Bubblicious Day in Anaheim" - Friday, April 21, 1978.
"Law Day U.S.A. in Anaheim" - Monday, May 1, 1978.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, minutes of
the regular meeting held March 7, 1978, were approved subject to typographical
corrections. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,308,679.58, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
123/118/137: AUDIT REPORT OF MIKEN ASSOCIATES, INC. - WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM
PROGRAM: City Manager Talley explained that the Personnel Director was out of town
and he (Talley) would also be out of town the next week. Thus, if there were any
questions on the subject report, he suggested that the matter be continued two weeks.
Councilman Seymour stated that he had discussed the report with the City Manager and
he had serious questions regarding the report, but did not have the opportunity as
yet to obtain answers.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, discussion of the
Audit Report of Miken Associates, Inc. on the Workers' Compensation Claim Program
of the City of Anaheim administered by R. L. Kautz and Company, was continued
two weeks. MOTION CARRIED.
106/174: ACCEPTING TITLE III AND V GRANTS FROM THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the subject grants in the
amount of $23,331 from the Older Americans Act for improvements at the Senior Citizens
Center was accepted, and said funds were appropriated to the Recreation Division
budget, as recommended in memorandum dated April 12, 1978, from the Director of
Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE ANNUAL CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA: (not to exceed $1,500)
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-232 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated April 12, 1978, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and the
Arts. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-232: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FREMONT PARENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
78-432
Ci__ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-232 duly passed and adopted.
123: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - GUSTAVO DURAN:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-233 for adoption, amending the
existing agreement between the City of Anaheim and State of California pro-
viding for the transfer of Gustavo A. Duran to the California Conservation
Corps., as recommend in the joint memorandum dated April 12, 1978, from the
Personnel Director and Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-233: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-233 duly passed and adopted.
106/159/161: CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to authorize an additional position of Construction Inspector to
the Public Works Department for construction inspection of Redevelopment projects,
and authorizing the lease of one pickup truck. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott referred to memorandum dated April 10,
1978, from the City Engineer, and stated that he would prefer to have a limit
placed on the duration of the job appointment so that it would not be carried on
indefinitely.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the completion of the project was scheduled over
a three-year period. If it was a question of saving money by eliminating the
inspection process, she believed that position would be more economical over the
long term.
Councilman Kott clarified that he was not advocating the position be eliminated,
but that there could be more efficiency in the governmental process by utilizing
the people the City now has.
James Maddox, City Engineer, explained it was fully the intent when the jobs were
completed, that the position be abolished. They did not wish to specify a definite
time because some jobs were dependent upon acquiring right-of-way, and many delays
could occur. He would rather commit to discontinuing the position when the jobs
were comple~e. Total construction projected before the end of the calendar year
amounted to more than $6 million, and it was impossible to become more efficient
and at the same time go out to the canyon and adequately inspect that type of work.
78-433
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour agreed with Councilman Kott and shared his concern that such a
position could be carried over and then slipped off into another area. He
thereupon asked City Manager Talley what it would take in order to. have the
position expire in three years, and if it carried over an additional six months,
the Council could then be approached relative to an extension.
Mr. Talley explained that it could be put into the 1981-82 Budget, that is only
the provision that the position would appear. Although a person was being dis-
cussed, in reality, they were providing a certain number of work hours for in-
spection purposes, and lending them to Redevelopment. At the end of the con-
struction projects, he would assume that the Redevelopment Agency would not pay
for inspection service, and thus would not reimburse the City. If the City
wanted to continue those hours, staff would have to come back to the Council
and look for another funding source because those work hours were specifically
established for reimbursement purposes from the Redevelopment Agency, and no
other purpose. Whenever the projects would decelerate to where Redevelopment
did not want to pay for the inspection services, they could merely terminate them
and staff would have to bring in a new work program for the inspector because the
hours would be gone. He would prefer to see the matter handled in that fashion.
Councilman Roth recommended as an amendment that three years be stipulated, and
at approximately the 24th to 28th month, the matter be reviewed, and if necessary
request the Council to extend the position.
Councilwoman Kaywood accepted the amendment as well as Councilman Overholt in his
second.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with the amendment as articulated.
MOTION CARRIED.
115.123: ROOFING INSPECTION AND CONSULTING SERVICE: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
a resolution for adoption authorizing an agreement with Roofing Inspection &
Consulting Service, to provide roofing inspection and consulting services in
conjunction with the construction of the Civic Center, for the sum of $5,385.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott referred to memorandum dated April 7,
1978, from the City Engineer, recommending the subject agreement. He wanted to
know why such additional services were needed for the roof and not for items such
as plumbing, electrical, walls, etc.
City Engineer James Maddox explained that inspection was provided for all of the
other phases mentioned, but roofing was a specialized process, and the firm
recommended had been employed on the Convention Center reroofing and the new
addition with excellent results. He believed it was a better expenditure of
funds than to pay for a bond which was another alternative.
Councilman Kott questioned why the roofers could not bond themselves, and if the
roof was not correct, they would have to fix it. He maintained it was not incum-
bent upon the user to see that the workers' jobs were correctly done.
Mr. Maddox stated that was the reason why the City had a Project Manager on the
job to insure that the contractor accomplished what he was supposed to do, but the
roof was a phase of the work that was highly specialized.
78-434
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April__]8, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott thereupon st;~ted that as one member of the Council, he could not
in good conscience vote to spend $5,385 for some phase of construction that should
bc hand]ed either by City employees, the Project Manager, the architect or the owner
L~f the company with whom the contract had been negotiated. It did not make sense to
spend additional monies to insure that the job was being done.
In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Maddox stated the alternative could be a bond,
but the cost of the bond premium would probably surpass the sum proposed for an
inspector. ~
Councilman Roth also asked the avenue of recourse if the City spent the money for
inspection, and the roof subsequently was defective.
John Roche, Property Maintenance Superintendent, stated recourse would be through
the roofing contractor and the general contractor. One problem experienced with
all complicated roof projects on City buildings revolved around the special type
of roof material used, and therefore it was better to have a roofing inspector.
As Mr. Maddox stated, the same inspector was utilized on the reroofing of the
Convention Center, and since that time, no problems with water leakage had occurred.
The roof was special because it was a monoform-type roof, a spray-type fiberglass
mixed with asphalt and sprayed onto the roof. He then explained the specific
installation procedure. The inspection would also include waterproofing of the
parking structure and fountains outside of the Civic Center.
Councilman Kott stated what he gleaned from Mr. Roche's explanation, and the key
insuring a problem-free roof was not the fact that it would be inspected, but
someone was holding someone else's hand to make certain things were being done
properly. Thus, someone was already being paid to do the job in any case. If the
roof was so complex, the architect should accept that responsibility and he hoped
the City Attorney had insured that such a provision was included in the contract.
He personally could not understand the philosophy of paying someone to stand and
watch another person who was being paid to do a complex job to begin with.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution and failed to carry by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Seymour
City Manager Talley then asked for specific staff instruction.
Councilman Seymour suggested that, as Councilman Kott pointed out, the City hired
a Project Manager specifically to supervise construction of the Civic Center, and
to see that it progressed properly; Mr. Talley confirmed that a resident inspector
was hired, thereupon, Councilman Seymour stated if that man was not competent to
inspect the roof and make certain it was applied properly, then ~he City had the
wrong man.
Councilman Roth asked for the cost of a bond. If bonding costs were more than
the costs for the inspector, he would take another look at the matter to ascertain
placement of the ultimate responsibility. Councilman Overholt also stated that al-
though he voted for the resolution, he believes cost figures would be helpful.
78-435
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
At the conciusion of further discussion, Mr. Talley stated that data on a performance
bond would be submitted to the Council along with cost figures, as well as clarifica-
tion on the contractual relationship the City had with Del Webb relative to the
matter.
158: REQUEST TO PURCHASE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY - WEST SIDE OF WEST STREET, NORTH
OF KATELLA: ($3,400) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-234 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated March 22, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT DEED THEREFOR. (Pei-Chung and Rosano Hsu Chao)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-234 duly passed and adopted.
123: ASSESSMENT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ON THE REHABILITATION OF THE POLICE PISTOL
RANGE: Mr. James P. Reid, Contractor on the subject project stated that he wanted
to register serious objections to the recommendation that he be assessed $7,200
in liquidated damages. He conceded it was obvious a project originally scheduled
to be completed in August 1977, still being discussed in April, had been delayed
long beyond what was initially intended to be the completion date. He emphasized
that delays had been substantially beyond his control, and that the job was a very
complicated one 'involving specialty equipment which had to be shipped from Chicago.
He maintained that City staff's own position in conceding one-half of those delays
was an implicit acknowledgement of that fact.
The thrust of Mr. Reid's position was that his contract work was s~bstantially
completed on December 15, 1977, and the two principal items of work on that job
were: (1) installation of range equipment shipped from Chicago, which eq~uipment
was delivered the end of August, and subsequently installed. Delays occurred
however because of back ordered material, but in any event, it was accepted by
City staff on November 30 or December 1, 1977; and (2) The work involved instal-
lation of a new air conditioning system which was required to blow lead particles
away from the shooters and out of the building. It was tested and found to meet
contract requirements on December 15, 1977. Delays since then in making the range
operational were due to the design problems of the air conditioning system, and
even though it was done in accordance with design drawings and specifications, it
did not satisfy the County Health Department.
Mr. Reid explained that he did not have an opportunity to go over the factual de-
tails with the Engineering Department as to how they had arrived at the assessment
figure, and he had just received the City Engineer's memorandum of April 12, 1978,
before coming to the meeting. He contended there were serious questions regarding
the enforceability of the liquidated damage clauses in the contract, and it was
grossly unfair and inequitable to assess $7,200 when the project was substantially
completed in mid-December and delays since that time were totally outside their
area of control or responsibility.
78-4 ~ 6
(:itt, Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIl, MINUTES- April 18, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Reid stated that at this point, in an attempt to settle the
matter and avoid what woul. d undoubtedly be extensive arbitration and litigation
1or everyone concerned, he was offering the following to the City: he wouJd
a~'cept responsibility for the delays from the time the range equipment was accepted
by the City, or approximately December 1, 1977, to the time the air conditioning
system was air balanced on December 15, 1977, approximately 15 days equaling $1,500.
He could not accept the $7,200, and if the City adopted that position, he would
have no choice but to contest such a decision.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Council respected his position, however he did not
believe it proper for the Council to negotiate a settlement of a disputed claim
with Mr. Reid in a public forum, and that was the reason for a City Attorney who
could determine if there was any possibility of settling the claim without pursuing
it to the ultimate. The question before the Council today was a simple one--whether
or not to assess the liquidated damages.
>Ir. Reid stated he was told the Engineering Department had taken the position that
they would not negotiate the matter any further, and continuing negotiations had
to be left up to the Council.
Councilman Seymour thereupon asked City Attorney Hopkins his recommendations as
they pertained to the legalities of a settlement.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the position had been taken by the contractor
that he was not responsible for all of the delays. The Council's decision would
be whether to assess the amount of liquidated damages and the City Engineer might
have input to assist in making that decision. If the Council decided damages
should be $7,200, perhaps in the future some settlement o~.that claim could then
be discussed. He reiterated at this point it was merely a matter of the Council
making a decision as to whether the figures presented were correct.
MOTION: After a brief discussion revolving around Councilwoman Kaywood's suggestion
of a continuance, Councilman Roth maintained it was imperative for Mr. Reid's
attorney to meet with the City Attorney relative to a justified assessment. He
thereupon moved to accept the assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of
$7,200 against James P. Reid, Contractor on the rehabilitation of the Police
pistol range. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated he wanted the matter continued,
and in the meantime, both attorneys could meet to possibly work out a satisfactory
solution. He personally felt that perhaps splitting the difference might be agreeable
to the Council.
Councilman Overholt stated he would be opposed to a continuance because the Council
was being asked to determine whether the formula as set up in the contract had been
properly applied to the facts, not whether the demand for $7,200 was reasonable under
the circumstances. It was up to the City Attorney to determine if the liquidated
damages clause was enforceable or if it contained some weakness, in which event that
would be cause to discuss a discount.
Councilman Kott took issue with Councilman Overholt's statement because he maintained
he was also being asked to look at a possible litigation matter which would involve
public funds, and that was his major concern. If a continuance and arbitration could
be worked out which could save money for the taxpdyer, he was for it; there was no
expense involved in giving Mr. Reid a continuance.
78-437
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978t 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion offered by Councilman Roth.
Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
123: USE OF INDUSTRIAL TRACK FACILITIES: (agreement with Southern Pacific Trans-
portation Company - property purchased from Nalco Chemical Company). Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-235 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated March 21, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-235: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN INDUSTRIAL TRACK AGREEMENT (Southern
Pacific Transportation Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-235 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STEEL INC. - DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF SURPLUS
EQUIPMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-236 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated April 6, 1978, from the Director of Public Works.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT 400 EAST VERMONT STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Surplus
tanks, piping, catwalks, and pumps)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mmyor declared Resolution No. 78R-236 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Kott moved to recess into Executive Session.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:10 P.M.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 78-122:
Lucille C. Bernier, Notice of Order to Show Cause why Home Occupation Permit
No. 78-122 to allow a private tutoring service at 1335 South Ashington Lane,
should not be terminated for violation of the provisions of Section 18.02.052.040.
?g-4 ~8
(ii_tr. 1l~11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978~ 1:3() P.M.
After d£scussion with staff relative to the format, t~e Mayor opened the public
hearing.
Zon£ng Enforcement Officer Whitey Walp recounted bis activity on the subject
matter starting on October 5, 1977:
He first contacted Sister Bernier at her residence at 1335 South Ashington Lane,
and Sister stated she had three nuns teaching there, two of which were in residence,
herself and another teacher. He served a Notice of Violation because she was con-
ducting what she called a tutoring service at her residence without the benefit of
any Zoning action or any City Business License. She was thus instructed to file
for a conditional use permit within 15 days and she did so immediately. The matter
was placed on the Planning Commission Agenda November 21, 1977, but was continued
to December 5, 1977. The Planning Commission subsequently denied the application
for a conditional use permit on the grounds of complaints from residents in the
neighborhood. Sister Bernier then appealed the decision to the City Council, and
on January 24, 1978, the Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1768. Citizens
in the area of 1335 Ashington Lane subsequently hired an attorney and asked for a
rehearing, and on February 28, 1978, the Council denied conditional use permit.
Thereafter, Mr. Walp stated he received complaints regarding the fact that Sister
Bernier had teachers teaching at the tutoring service in violation of her Home
Occupation Permit and license, which had been issued to her subsequent to the
denial of the conditional use permit. In his conversation with Sister Bernier on
March 27, 1978, she admitted she had engaged a teacher not living at the residence,
but at that time she was ill, and instead an aide who also drove the children to
parks, acted as a substitute. He explained that in itself would be a violation
and he confirmed that Sister Bernier could not have an assistant and that no one
could partake in the Home Occupation Permit who was not a resident. He thereupon
served her another Notice of Violation to that effect. On April 5, 1978, she
received notification that a public hearing was going to be held relative to her
Home Occupational Permit No. 78-122.
Mr. Ronald Rus, attorney for Sister Bernier, One City Boulevard West, Orange, stated
that the Order to Show Cause, as a matter of procedural process, dealt with the Home
Occupation Permit, the application for which was not made until March 13, 1978.
He therefore requested clarification as to the specific subject matter on which the
Council wished to proceed.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that it would be Council's decision today whether
Home Occupation Permit No. 78-122 would be revoked or permitted to continue, and
the two grounds upon which the decision should be made, as stated in the notice
sent to Sister Bernier, were (1) no persons other than a member of the resident
family shall engage in the Home Occupation, and (2) no increased pedestrian or
vehicular traffic shall be generated.
~e Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the revocation of Home Occupa-
tion Permit No. 78-122.
The following people spoke in favor of the revocation for the below listed reasons
or related comments:
78-439
City ttall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -April 18.~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
blrs. Ann Schwartz, 1324 Ashington Lane, first read a letter dated April 5, 1978,
from Reverend Michael P. Driscoll, Chancellor Secretary to the Bishop, Diocese of
Orange, (made a part of the record) which recommended that a Sister Maura Judge
be contacted for clarification of Sister Lucille Bernier's status. They subse-
quently tried to contact Sister Judge, but she refused to answer.
Mrs. Schwartz continued that since Sister had received a Home Occupation Permit,
traffic in the neighborhood had worsened. Although students were being kept down
to five at a time, it involved five parents delivering and five parents picking up
every two and one-half hours. She also contended that the parents were spitefully
making U-turns in front of their homes and into their driveways, revving their
engines and causing a generally uncomfortable situation. She asked that the
Home Occupation Permit be revoked as soon as possible because they had all been
under great mental stress because of the situation.
Virginia Hahn, 1336 Ashington Lane, directly across the street from Sister Bernier,
stated the traffic had not improved, and in fact, was worse. Cars started arriving
between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. when the children of residents in the neighborhood were
going to school. At noon there was cross-traffic with parents arriving.for the five
children, and then the children coming for the next class. Subsequently, the 2:30
pick-up time coincided with their children coming home from school. She maintained
the situation should be brought to an end.
Mr. Donald Graf, 1340 Ashington Lane, first stated that more residents would have
been in attendance, but they were unable to be present. Specifically the neighbors
immediately to the south of the subject residence, and a Mr. and Mrs. Perkins. As
well, Mrs. Irene Raimondo, 1331 Ashington Lane, requested that her letter dated
April 18, 1978, (made a part of the record) be read aloud. After reading Mrs.
Raimondo's letter, which contained her concerns and reasons for supporting the revo-
cation of the Home Occupaiton Permit, Mr. Graf again highlighted his obj~ections to
the continuance of the permit (see minutes of January 24 and February 2g, 1978).
1. He was a long time resident of Ashington Lane, as were many of the residents.
They were very pleased with their area, and wondered when the attempt to mix business
with residences would be put in proper perspective, emphasizing that a residential
area should be maintained as such. They did not believe that businesses and resi-
dences should be mixed.
2. The traffic situation had not improved, and the layering approach caused problems
with cars coming and going at the same time.
3. They were concerned over a business being allowed to come into the neighborhood
with corresponding traffic. If condoned and allowed to accelerate, the situation
would deteriorate.
4. Other Home Occupation uses which existed on Ashington Lane followed the Code
closely; that is, there was no increased pedestrian or vehicular traffic generated
from those uses. If a precedent was set, he was certain there would be no argument
on behalf of those people who did have such home uses to allow the subject use to
continue.
5. He questioned the intent of a Home Occupation Permit; his understanding was that
such a permit was intended to be of convenience to people who might have a telephone
answering service or trying to make ends meet, and not for the pure business aspect.
78-440
(~i_t~~. tt~t[], Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978, ]:]0 P.M.
~. He questioned how a conditional use permit, which was sought and then denied,
~ould so quickly be converted into approval of another type by merely filling out
a one-page form and having it approved by someone behind the counter in the proper
City department.
In concluding, Mr. Graf urged the Council to deny the continued use so they could
have their residential area as an entity.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in support of the revocation,
the Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Sister Lucille Bernier, 1335 South Ashington Lane, stated on March 27, 1978, she
was issued a Notice of Violation of Section 18.02.052.040 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code. Thereafter, a letter was received from the City Attorney dated March 30, 1978,
wherein she was advised that the City's specific concern revolved around Subsections
.0401 and .0403. Thus, she would speak to the provisions of those subsections.
.0401: At the present and not since March 28, 1978, was there any person not a
resident of 1335 Ashington Lane engaged in any manner in the tutoring service she
conducted.
.0403: With respect to creation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, she referred
to the traffic count made by the City's Traffic Engineer, which revealed an ADT
of 1,100 vehicle trips per 24-hour period. However, the capacity of the street
for any 24-hour period was 10,000 trips. Therefore, the street was operating
at 10 percent of its capacity. She maintained that the number of trips generated
by reason of her tutoring service based on one trip for a parent to pick-up or
deliver a child and one trip for a parent to depart after picking up would be
a total of 20 vehicle trips per 24 hours, which was 2 percent of the vehicular
traffic on the street or 2 percent of the street vehicular capacity. She did not
believe that could be fairly construed as a violation of .0403. Based on that
information, she respectfully submitted that she was not in violation of the Anaheim
Municipal Code if that Code was to be fairly applied.
Sister Bernier then confirmed for Mayor Seymour she did not have anyone assisting
her except a Mrs. Salott who had been helping her with the children after one of
the Sisters became ill. She stated there was a misunderstanding on the part of
Mr. Walp, and if he saw another person in her home, it was another retired Sister
living with her, and she was not a teacher. She also confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that no one else had moved into the home, and, in fact, one had moved out,
leaving only herself and the retired Sister. She had been the only teacher since
March 28, 1978, when she received a Notice of Violation and the only one having
anything to do with the children.
Mayor Seymour also questioned Sister Bernier relative to Subsection .0402, stating
that ho sales of products or services on the premises was permitted.
Sister Bernier stated that she did not have a fixed charge for her services, but
worked on a scholarship fund, and was paid through that means.
Upon further Council questioning, SiSter Bernier confirmed the following:
(1) She was restricting her tutoring to five students at any one time.
78-449
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
(2) Two students came in a carpool of a group of four.
(3) One group left at 11:00 a.m., another at 2:30 p.m. The second group
arrived at 11:00 a.m. If there was any waiting, it was only a minute or two.
(4) She did not believe that vehicular traffic on Ashington Lane had over-
burdened the street because of her operation; it generated less traffic than
a single-family having five or six cars. She had only one vehicle.
(5) The number of vehicles coming to her home each day varied--sometimes four
one day, six the next, seven the next. Sometimes children did not come one week
and sometimes they were scheduled to come three times or twice a week.
(6) She presently had 11 students on a staggered scheduled.
Mr. Rus questioned the fact that the Mayor seemed to be concerned relative to
the Code section pertaining to sales and services. If so, he was not prepared
to respond to that aspect, but could do so at another time.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that the Order to Show Cause was based on the two
items of concern previously articulated by him, and did not state anything relative
to sales and services. He also confirmed for the Mayor that Mr. Rus was suggesting
that, in fact, the Council did not have the right to consider the provisions under
Section .0402 at this time.
Mr. Rus stated he would not be so brash as to suggest the Council did not have a
right to consider that aspect, but only if they did have concerns in that area,
he was not now prepared to answer such concerns.
A brief discussion then followed between Council, staff and Mr. Rus relative to the
conflict of evidence over non-residents teaching in the school, at the conclusion
of which Miss Santalahti stated that no one but Sister Bernier was teaching as of
March 28, 1978. City Attorney Hopkins stated that was one of the items brought to
the City's attention as a point of contention. It appeared that there was another
assistant, but now such assistance was discontinued.
Mrs. Kathleen Conley, Placentia, stated she had three children attending Anaheim
schools, one at St. Justin Mmrtyr School in close proximity to Sister Bernier's
residence. Thus, she had occasion to travel on Ashington Lane frequently since
she was a personal friend of Sister Bernier who had also taught her two youngest
children with great success. Since the matter had been before the Council three
times now, she maintained that their time was being misused, and the matter
should be settled on a staff level. Sister Bernier was trying to adhere to the
rules of the City; at one time the Council agreed with her and the next time the
use was denied.. There was constant harrassment from the neighbors, and if there
were traffic problems, they were being caused by the other residents. Some of
the students had been harrassed by residents taking pictures of them, cars were
stopped and license plate numbers copied causing some of the students to leave.
She maintained that the Council should not allow such action to continue. However,
they were doing so by allowing the matter to be brought up repeatedly. She reiter-
ated that Sister was trying to stay within a use condoned by the City, and based
fairly on the record, that Council should consider the matter carefully.
78-4z2
City Ua Il, A~aheim, Call fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - A]2ri I 1_8_z_1_978~ .1_:_3_0 P.M.
Ih, th Salott verified that she was no longer involved with Sister Bernier's
tutoring service as of the date stated.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Seymour thereupon asked for clarification relative to the issuance of
a Home Occupation Permit. He understood the purpose and intent of such a permit
was for a person wishing to conduct a business for profit or pleasure out of their
residence, but in such a fashion so that there was no coming or going of either
customers or employees. The activity would be totally contained so there was no
outward appearance of any business being conducted to any member of the public.
Miss Santalahti stated the only exception to that regulation arose under an area
which identified a child nursery as requiring a conditional use permit when more
than six children were involved. Under a Home Occupation Permit, five students
or less was the most that could be accommodated on the premises at any one time.
She also confirmed that such a stipulation could be interpreted that five could
be accommodated at one time and then leave, and this could continue during the
day so long as there were no more than five at one time.
Councilman Seymour questioned why Sister Bernier was not asked if she was tutoring
for profit or if, in fact, she was being paid.
Miss Santalahti stated the Planning Department was involved because Sister received
a business license for the use, and the assumption was that Somewhere along the line
money was changing hands. Historically, it was staff's practice to approve a Home
Occupation Permit for teaching services and music lessons where the applicant was
being paid.
Mayor Seymour recounted a similar situation involving pian6 lessons being conducted
under a Home Occupation Permit. However, the use had to be discontinued in the
residential area where it was established because of the traffic generated. In his
understanding of the policy relative to Home Occupation Permits, he did not believe
coming and going of public traffic was permitted because there was no way to limit
it. The subject use, although limited to five and thus, totally within the ordinance,
could, if the applicant wished, have five students every two hours or whatever
interval was chosen. He maintained that was not the intent of the Home Occupation
Permit. Although Sister Bernier responded relative to Section .0401, as well as
.0403, h~ could not ~ind justi~icatlon in permitting ~ome Occupation Permit No. 78-122
to continue, and he thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-237 for adoption, revoking
that permit.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor clarified for Councilman Kott that a subsequent
motion directing the City Attorney to amend or clarify the Code relative to Home
Occupation Permits would be in order, but his resolution dealt strictly with the
subject permit. He was not offering that as a basis for his resolution, but, in
fact, his basis was Section .0403.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a prior case regarding a beauty shop being con-
ducted with a Home Occupation Permit where it was a choice of the applicant with
a disabled husband of going on welfare or working out of her home. The particular
area involved posed no traffic problem at all. Therefore, she did not believe it
78-443
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
would be fair to eliminate all such permits; the Mayor stated that the vehicle
of a conditional use permit was still available as an avenue of recourse.
Councilman Roth stated he would support the resolution for an altogether different
reason. As he stated in the past, he maintained that Sister Bernier would have
difficulty in that neighborhood in conducting a class with one student in a 24-hour
period with no parking on Ashington Lane because the hostility in the neighborhood
was such to make it an impossible situation.
City Attorney Hopkins suggested that the resolution include the findings of the
Council that cause for revocation was the increase in the generation of pedestrian
and vehicular traffic in the area.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would support the resolution on that precise
basis. He also believed there was an adequate enforcement of the provision relative
to no sales or services which included music teachers and schools. If it was not
enforced, then it should be revised. The whole section deserved the attention of
the City Attorney to revise and update to current times.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution for the reason as articulated by
the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-237: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT 78-122 ISSUED TO LUCILLE C. BERNIER, 1335 SOUTH
ASHINGTON LANE, ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-237 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that the City Attorney be directed to examine
Code Section 18.01.090, 18.02.052.040 and subsequent sections to consider sub-
mitting a review of that section consistent with the times. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Councilman Kott questioned the fact that if there was no exchange of money in terms
of service or goods, why would someone seek a Home Occupation Permit. He suggested
that perhaps the whole section be eliminated.
Miss Santalahti answered that it was purely for a business license, and if the
applicant wanted a business license at a residential address, it would not be
given unless they could answer to a Home Occupation Permit. People did violate
City ordinances by not seeking a business license when they were supposed to;
however, when they applied for a business license at a residential address, that
was the time Zoning became interested. One hundred twenty-two such permits had
been issued through March 1978, and approximately 1,000 were in effect throughout
the City at present.
78-444
Cj_'ty [iall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - A~ril 18, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
C~ty Attorney Hopkins stated there were certain types of occupations in homes
where certain materials were delivered or a service provided where no sale or
payment for services took place on the premises, and that was probably the
original intent of the home occupation permit. He agreed that the section
needed revision in view of present day conditions.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING - CONDEMNATION: Finding and determining the public interest and necessity
for acquiring and authorizing condemnation of certain real property located south
of Nohl Ranch Road, westerly of Royal Oak Road, as required for storm drain, sewer
and public utility purposes, belonging to The Janaeo~Financial Corporation, Harold R.
and Tillie Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Ambuehl.
Mr. Thomas W. Stoever, 1000 Sunset Boulevard, stated that he was retained to repre-
sent the City as special counsel in the acquisition of the subject properties. In
the event a resolution should be adopted by the Council today, Mr. Stoever outlined
some changes in the resolution and descriptions previously submitted to the Council.
First, the legal descriptions originally submitted were replaced with new legal
descriptions conforming to the sketches which were also furnished; Mayor Seymour
noted that sketches had not been submitted to the Council. Secondedly, the area
of the Janaco property was increased by 20 square feet, now totaling .445 acres.
Exhibit "A" referred to on the first page of the original resolution consisted of
four pages and not six, and finally, the legal descriptions contained in the resolu-
tion which had been submitted to the City Clerk had been proofread and compared to
Engineering drawings by VTN Consolidated.
Mr. Stoever also referred to memorandum dated April 4, 1978, from the City Engineer
already submitted, and stated he was prepared to make a presentation with a descrip-
tive aerial photograph.
Mayor Seymour first asked if any of the property owners were present. None were
present, although City Engineer Maddox stated that Mr. Jones and his attorney had
been in his office earlier.
While staff checked further to ascertain whether or not Mr. Jones was still in
the building, Councilman Kott asked Mr. Stoever what his response was to the three
concerns, A, B, and C, expressed by Mr. Jones in his letter received April 6, 1978.
Relative to A, whether the public interest and necessity required the project, Mr.
Stover stated the answer was yes. Involved was a drain and sanitary sewer run of
approximately 3,800 feet which was important to the development of the property to
the south. On B, whether the project was planned and located in a manner that would
be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury, Mr.
Stover explained that professional engineers had performed hours of studies to plan
and locate the project accordingly.
Relative to C, whether the property sought to be acquired was necessary for the
project, Mr. Stoever stated there was no question but that the property involved
was necessary to the public project, and without that acquisition, the project
would not proceed.
Mayor Seymour thereupon recommended that, in the absence of Mr. Jones, the matter
be postponed in view of the fact that Mr. Jones had written a letter on the subject,
78-445
~ity t~ll, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978~ ]:30 P.M.
and had also called him (Seymour) the night before indicating that he was upset
that condemnation was taking place and, as well, he asked for assurance that he
could speak to the matter.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the hearing relative to
condemnation of the subject property was continued for one week and staff was directed
to contact Mr. Jones accordingly. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - PRESENTATION BY JOHN FLOCKEN ON PROPOSED ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM: Mr. John Flocken, 1320 South Hacienda, first explained he was not speaking
for the Chamber of Commerce, but as Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee for Economic
Development, although the proposal had been ratified by the Chamber. He stated that
a recognized need had evolved for a fresh and structured approach to the economic
development of the City of Anaheim. More than a year had elapsed since the Blue
Ribbon Committee was suggested in form to study alternate courses of action to
attract, promote and retain commercial and industrial developments suitable to the
City. The Committee consisted of Gene Rounds, industrial real estate broker,
W. D. Owen Company; Mel Miller, Bank of America; Stan Pawlowski, Heritage Bank;
Allan Hughes, Hughes Paper Company; Fred Schmuck, Fluidmaster; Mayor John Seymour;
Councilman Don Roth; City Manager William Talley; Norm Priest, Executive Director
of Community Development; Larry Sierk, Vice President of the Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce; John Flocken, MCP Foods.
Recognizing the increasingly complex and intensifying competition in the area of
community economic development, the historic role of the Chamber of Commerce to
provide a comprehensive economic development program for a community was outmoded
and the Chamber no longer possessed the resources necessary to provide a city the
size of Anaheim with such a program. For the Chamber to do so unilaterally would
represent a duplication of efforts in many areas. The Blue Ribbon Committee was
impressed by the vast store of data pertinent to economic development being generated
and in the possession of certain various City departments such as the Planning
Department, Redevelopment, Utilities, Public Works and Manpower Services. This
data properly correlated would provide all the information necessary to support
a carefully directed marketing effort to achieve all goals and objectives identified
as desirable to the economic development of the City. It was also noted by the
Committee that various organizations and agencies were currently acting in one way
or another to promote economic development in the City, such as the Chamber
of Commerce, Planning Department, Manpower Services, Community Development Depart-
ment and the Orange County Economic Development Corporation. The City Manager
observed that the result was a disjointed and uncoordinated effort, and the Blue
Ribbon Committee agreed that the basic need was for a vehicle to coordinate all
economic development efforts utilizing the available assets of both the public and
private sector of the community.
In view of the foregoing, the Blue Ribbon Committee recommended the following: that
an Economic Development Corporation be created to provide Anaheim with a coordinated
economic development effort suitable to the City's needs with the corporation to be
governed by a 9-man board of directors, composed of 2 members appointed by the City
Council, 2 by the office of the City Manager, 3 by the Chamber of Commerce, 1 by
the Anaheim Board of Realtors, and the final member appointed by the other 8 directors
as a member of the community at large. Their function would be to establish goals
and objectives and set policies for economic development of the City. The Board
78-446
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 18, ]978, 1:30 P.M.
would then employ a full-time economic development coordinator to construct pro-
grams in order to achieve those goals and objectives within the framework of the
policies established by the Board, utilizing all the input available from the City
departments and all of the marketing expertise the Chamber of Commerce and industrial
real estate brokerage fraternity could supply.
Operating funds would be derived from various government programs generated through
the City and through agreements between the Corporation and the City. Funds from
the private sector would be in the form of services utilized by the coordinator in
the marketing effort.
In concluding, Mr. Flocken stated that the Blue Ribbon Committee at their final
meeting voted unanimously to recommend this proposed structure to the City Council,
and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted overwhelmingly in favor
of the Corporation (22 for-- 1 abstention--1 no). As Chairman of the Committee,
Past President of the Chamber of Commerce, Member of the industrial co~unity and
resident of the City, Mr. Flocken urged the approval of the creation of the Economic
Development Corporation. He then referred to the budget submitted to the Council as
well as the proposed by-laws of the corporation. It Was revealed later in the meeting
that only Councilman Roth and Mayor Seymour had received a copy of the by-laws.
At the request of Mayor Seymour, Mr. Flocken stated that the major purpose for his
presentation to the City Council was to seek approval of the establishment of an
economic development corporation for the purpose of coordinating economic development __~
efforts. The Blue Ribbon Committee developed a structure of 9 persons as well as
a set of by-laws approved unanimously by the entire Committee with the counsel of the
City Attorney's Office. The next step was to seek articles of incorporation, and tben
proceed along the lines given in the structure presented.
City Manager Talley then explained for Councilman Kott where the funds for the pro-
gram would be derived. He stated the vast majority would come from the Manpower
Budget specifically allocated for economic development purposes under the President's
new plan to coordinate economic development activities. Thus, it was an authorized
use. It was also anticipated that some City funds would be used because of the
concentration in the Redevelopment Project areas provided by the Community Develop-
ment Department, and specifically the Redevelopment Agency, but that would represent
a minor portion. He expected, however, that approximately 80 percent would be funded
by the Department of Labor, Federal Manpower Funds and approximately 20 percent from
Redevelopment Agency Funds.
Councilman Kott stated that he approved of the proposal in concept and believed it
to be a move in the right direction. Before he could sopport it totally, however,
he wanted to be certain the full project was subsidized by the Federal government
and no City funds/taxpayer funds used at all.
During a brief discussion, Mr. Flocken clarified the following: the by-laws were
tailored almost in total after those of the Orange County Economic Development Corp-
oration with the exception of the section pertaining to the composition of the
Board of Directors; the Committee did not discuss where the organization would be
housed although he would not recommend that it be housed in the Chamber of Commerce.
78-44 7
_C_i_ty Hall.~_Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 1.8, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott thereupon moved that the City, in concept, form an Anaheim
Economic Development Corporation as proposed. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council discussion followed revolving around the by-
laws. Councilman Roth assured Councilwoman Kaywood that although she did not
have an opportunity to review them, at the Committee's last meeting in which he
participated, they were carefully scrutinized, and thus provided all the protec-
tion needed. Mayor Seymour also noted that the Council still had one remaining
action relative to the matter, and that was to approve a detailed contract with
the corporation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO 32-FOOT AERIAL DEVICE AND SERVICE TRUCK BODY -
BID NO. 3396: (Account No. 61-4820-325-29-0000) On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of Great Pacific Equipment Company was
accepted, and purchase authorized in the amount of $23,002.24, including tax,
as recommended in memorandum dated April 11, 1978, from the Purchasing Agent.
MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FIFTEEN THREE-PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS - BID
NO. 3401: (Account No. 32-1701) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by
Councilman Roth, the low bid of Westinghouse Electric Company on Items 1, 2 and
3 (12 transformers), and the low bid of General Electric Company on Items 4 and
5 (3 transformers) was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $40,299.08
and $33,367.74, respectively, including tax, as recommended in memorandum dated
April il, 1978, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - VEHICLE FUELING DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM AT POLICE
HEADQUARTERS - BID NO. 3408: (Account No. 46-4290-921-30) On motion by Council-
man Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of R. W. Milligan and
Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $13,104.62, including
tax, as recommended in memorandum dated April 12, 1978, from the Purchasing Agent.
MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - STREET LIGHT LUMINAIRE EQUIPMENT - BID NO. 3403:
(Account No. 32-1701) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the low bid of General Electric Supply Company was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $32,788.19, including tax, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 12, 1978, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO COMPACT SEDANS - BID NO. 3419: (Account No. 59-
4820-213-11-0000) On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the low bid of McCoy Ford was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $10,169.32, including tax, as recommended in memorandum dated April 11,
1978, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
105: REQUEST BY YOUTH COMMISSION: Endorsement of the Anaheim Youth of the Year
Award and appropriation of $500 from the Council Contingency Fund for the project
was requested.
78-448
(:_it_~ ttall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 18, 1978, 1:30 P.H.
C~ty Manager Talley pointed out for Councilman Roth that the Youth Commission
would have to submit bills to support the proposed allocation of $500, and they
did not believe they would exceed that amount.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Anaheim
Youth of the Year Award was endorsed, and an appropriation not to exceed $500
from the Council Contingency Fund for the project, was approved as recommended in
memorandum dated April 12, 1978, from the Youtb Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
175: RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD TO SUPPORT SB 1015: Exemption
of the Sundesert Nuclear Project from the requirements of the 1976 Nuclear Power
Plant Licensing legislation.
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, stated that the resolution adopted by the
Public Utilities Board indicated support for SB 1015 or other similar legislation.
A Constitutional amendment had been proposed in the Assembly to put the issue on
the November Ballot. There were indications from various Assemblymen that they
would attempt to remove the bill out of Committee, but be did not believe that
would have much chance of success. Instead, there would probably be efforts to
amend other bills to bring it in. He stressed that the Sundesert site was the
only approved power plant site in California at present, and everyone wanted to
preserve it in case there was affirmative action in November.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-238 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated April 11, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 1015 IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXEMPTION OF THE SUNDESERT
NUCLEAR PROJECT FROM REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1976 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING
LEGISLATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-238 duly passed and adopted.
175: EDISON-ANAHEIM INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE AGREEMENT: Public Utilities
Board recommendation relative to the Edison-Anaheim Interruptible Transmission Ser-
vice agreement from Victorville-Lugo Interconnection and authorization for the
Utilities Director to execute said agreement was submitted.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-239 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated April 7, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to
Resolution Book.
78-44.9
Ci~_tj2Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April ]8~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE
AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE ANAHEIM UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-239 duly passed and adopted.
175: ANAHEIM-NEVADA ECONOMY ENERGY AGREEMENT: Public Utilities Board recommenda-
tion to amend Section 39 of the Anaheim-Nevada Economy Energy agreement dated May 25,
1976, to change the point of delivery and authorization for the Utilities Director
to execute said amendment was submitted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-240 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated April 7, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-240: A RESOLUTION OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3 OF THE ECONOMY ENERGY AGREEMENT OF MAY 25,
1976, WITH NEVADA POWER COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE UTILITIES
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-240 duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-37 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1691 - EXTENSION
OF TIME: Request by Walter E. LaForce for an extension of time to Reclassifica-
tion No. 76-77-37 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1691, to permit a mini-warehouse
on proposed CL zoned property located at 3311 West Lincoln Avenue.
Miss Santalahti clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that there were approximately
7 mini-warehouses in the City at present. The applicant was interested in looking
at another use on the property, but the zoning would still be applicable as commer-
cial.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded, by Councilman Overholt, an extension of time
on the subject reclassification and conditional use permit was approved to expire
April 12, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
78-450
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978~ l:30 P.M.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: (Alcoholic Women's
Rehabilitation Center, Inc.) Councilman Kott stated that since he did not
see an Anaheim address on the application, as well as no benefit or proceeds
to be derived by Anaheim from the request, he would vote "no" in accordance
with the policy established by the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that as far as she knew, there were Anaheim residents
in the Santa Ana facility.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Application
for Solicitation of Charity Funds submitted by the Alcoholic Women's Rehabilita-
tion Center, Inc., for sale of tickets, May 10 through July 10, 1978, for a
dinner-dance and show, was approved. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-38, REQUEST FOR EVENING MEETING: (proposed CO zoning
at 800 South Harbor) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott,
a request for an evening meeting on the rehearing for Reclassification No. 77-78-38
was granted for June 6, 1978, 7:00 p.m. A rehearing was granted on April 11, 1978,
and public hearing tentatively scheduled for May 23, 1978, 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted Socorro Cordova for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a tree falling on his car during a storm on or about February 9,
1978.
b. Claim submitted by Russ Tureau for property damages purportedly sustained as
a result of difficulty with electrical power on or about March 1, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of power burns to buried cable due to a failure in equipment on or
about January 12, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Mrs. M. Eloise Parks for property damage purportedly sustained
as a result of street disrepair at 951 Sony Way, on or about February 24, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Boyd E. Williams for property damage purportedly sustained
as a result of power failure caused by a wind storm on or about February 10, 1978.
f. Claim submitted by John Passerello for property damage purportedly sustained
as a result of a power pole falling at 2474 West Orange Avenue on or about March 7
1978. ,
g. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Milroy Milton Chenoweth for property damage
purportedly sustained as a result of tree branches falling on their motorhome on
or about March 24, 1978.
76-451
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
h. Claim submitted by Robert and Nancy Wilcox for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a mudslide at 291 Calle Da Gama on or about December 28,
1978.
i. Claim submitted by Terri Metzler for property damage purportedly sustained
as a result of street disrepair at the intersection of East Street and La Palma
Avenue on or about February 28, 1978.
j. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company on behalf of
Joseph Habis, insured, for property damage and personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about
January 30, 1978.
APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE CLAIM: The following Application to File Late Claim
was denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier:
a. Submitted by Wayne Reicherter, Attorney, on behalf of James Henderson, natural
father and guardian of Ron E. Henderson, a minor, for personal injuries purportedly
sustained by Ron E. Henderson as a result of an accident involving a city-owned
vehicle on or about September 6, 1977.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Before the PUC Application No. 57963 Notice of Filing Application for
Rate Change in the Matter of the Application of Southern California Edison Company
for authority to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 22 and 29, 1978.
c. 105: Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee - Minutes of March 28, 1978.
d. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of March 28, 1978.
e. 175: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of March 16, 1978.
f. 156: Monthly report for March 1978 - Police Department.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE HALL AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits
were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Hall Permit for the Crescendo located at 1721 South Manchester
from 6:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. with an admission charge ranging from $4 to $7.
(Terry Lamar Morgan, Applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit for the Flintstone Fun Machine at Golf World, 1656
South Harbor Boulevard. (Hans J. Bothke, Applicant)
4. 150: BROOKHURST PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING~ STAGE II CONSTRUCTION~ CHANGE ORDER
NO. 5: In accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Order
No. 5, in the amount of $5,207.23, was authorized, bringing the original contract
price to $824,292.65. (Near-Cai Corporation, Contractor)
MOTION CARRIED.
78-4 52
City ltall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-241
through 78R-246, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Sunrise-Katella,
Ltd.; Technic, Inc.; James A. Liberio, et ux.; Frank H. Gerry, et ux.; Robert A.
Schlege], et ux.; Andrew Wickham Clay, et ux.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY AND
FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (77-18A, between Claudina and Philadelphia
Streets, south of Lincoln Avenue, public hearing set for May 9, 1978, 3:00 p.m.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-243: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION
AND INTERCONNECT, KATELLA AVENUE FROM WEST STREET TO HARBOR BOULEVARD AND FREEDMAN
WAY AT HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-712-16-0769.
(Steiny and Company)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-244: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HASTER STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT,
N/O TO SIMMONS AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-4309-708-16-0000.
(All American Asphalt)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-245: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PARK BUILDING AT RIO VISTA
PARK, WORK ORDER NO. 851. (R.J.W. Construction Company)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PARK BUILDING AT JUAREZ PARK,
WORK ORDER NO. 868. (R.J.W. Construction Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-241 through 78R-246 both inclusive duly
passed and adopted. ' '
78-453
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held March 27, 1978, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-41: Submitted by Jeral and Dortheal Stanley,
Michael and Linda Goehring, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200
on property located at 1904 and 1912 East Romneya Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-51, granted
Reclassification No. 77-78-41, and granted negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-48 AND EIR NO. 213: Submitted by Sunset Construc-
tion, Inc., for a change in zone from PR to CL on Portion "A" of property located
on the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Rampart Street and PR to CO on
Portion "B" of property located on the west side of Rampart Street, south of
Orangewood Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-52, granted Reclass-
ification No. 77-78-48, and certified EIR No. 213.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-52: Submitted by the City Planning Commission,
for a change in zone from County A-1 to RS-A-43,000 on property located on the
northwesterly side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and northeasterly of Mohler Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-55, granted
Reclassification No. 77-78-52, and granted negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO, 3001: Submitted by Rhys E. and Laurel E. Williams, to construct
a family-room addition on RS-5000 zoned property located at 1131 South Clarence
Street with code waiver of maximum site coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-58, granted Variance
No. 3001, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3003: Submitted by Crocker National Bank, to establish a 2-lot
subdivision on CL zoned property located at 2045 South Harbor Boulevard with code
waiver of requirement that all lots abut a public street.
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-59, granted Variance
No. 3003, and granted negative declaration status.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3004: Submitted by Sidney and Charlotte Singer, to establish a
radiator shop in an existing service station on CL zoned property located at
1020 East Lincoln Avenue with certain code waivers.
Variance No. 3004 was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner and the City
Planning Commission ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1808: Submitted by John R. Townsend, to permit an
automobile repair facility on CL zoned property located at 3174 West Ball Road.
78-454
Hall, A~'.~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Tl~e City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-60, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1808, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 911 - TERMINATION: Request by Joseph R. Caruso,
Agent, for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 911 to permit on-sale
liquor in a restaurant on property located at 1274 South Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-63, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 911.
9. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION: Submitted by DeVille investments, building
permit application for proposed improvements on property located 500 East Cypress
Street.
The City Planning Commission was concurrent with the findings of the Building Permit
Review Report submitted by the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency and
approved said Building Permit.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-51 AND VARIANCE NO. 3002: Submitted by Fern
Weaver, Executrix for the Estate of Flossie C. Hein, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RS-5000 on property located on the northeast corner of South and
Sunkist Streets, to establish a two-lot subdivision with code waiver of requirement
that single-family structures rear-on arterial highways.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-53 and PC78-54,
granted Reclassification No. 77-78-51 and Variance No. 3002, respectively, and
granted negative declaration status.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning
Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-53 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1815: Application
by E. O. Rodeffer, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and ML to ML on property
located on the east side of Dale Avenue, south of Orangethorpe Avenue, to permit
a racquetball facility.
Miss Santalahti referred to letter dated April 12, 1978, from the City of Buena
Park submitted to the Council expressing several concerns they had with the subject
property. Although it was located in Anaheim, they would utilize full services
from Buena Park. The Anaheim Planning Commission was aware of their concerns, but
they were unable to be specific in the comments made by Buena Park due to the short-
ness of time.
Councilman Seymour thereupon requested a review of the subject application.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1813: Application by Kennard C. and Betty M. Haverstick,
to permit~a board and care facility for six physically handicapped children on
RS-7200 zoned property located at 2609 East Diana Place.
Councilman Seymour requested a review of the subject application.
78-455
City Hall.~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL: Request by Frederick M. Culmann for removal of 17 specimen
trees (Eucalyptus) on property located at 244 South Owens Drive.
Councilman Kott requested a review of the subject specimen tree removal.
Miss Santalahti explained that although the Planning Commission took action on
March 27, 1978, they neglected to take action on the negative declaration. They
did however approve it one week before and it would be coming back to the City
Council in the 22-day appeal period, and it would then be appropriate to set it
for public hearing at that time.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that a correction should be made to the street address
in the staff report from 244 South Orange to 244 South Owens. The correction was
duly noted.
WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY: Request by Fern Weaver, Executrix for the Estate of
Flossie C. Hein, for a waiver of Council Policy No. 538, in connection with
Reclassification No. 77-78-51 and Variance No. 3002, on Lots 1 and 2 regarding the
lot depths on property located on the northeast corner of South and Sunkist Streets.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the setback was only 10 feet from Sunkist, a very
busy street, which would pose a difficult situation creating a problem of noise
and danger.
Miss Santalahti stated that in this instance, the Planning Commission recommended
approval because there were already a number of lots existing on Sunkist with
similar setbacks.
Councilman Seymour interjected that he was very familiar with the property, and
in his opinion it could either be developed into single-family residences or
an extension of the nursery school use adjacent to it as well as some other type
of commercial use. The City created a hardship parcel in approving the nursery
school leaving the subject parcel left over. He maintained that two single-family
residences would be better than a convenience market or gas station.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there would be additional insulation to mitigate
the noise, as well as a wall for safety.
Miss Santalahti stated that compliance with sound attenuation regulations would be
required, and a sound report would have to be submitted prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, waiver of Council Policy
No. 538 in connection with Reclassification No. 77-78-51 and Variance No. 3002
was approved, as recommended by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-55(77 - SPECIFIC PLANS: Request by Dunn Properties
for approval of specific plans for Reclassification No. 73-74-55(7) on proposed
ML zoned property to establish a planned commercial "park" adjacent to an industrial
tract located on the west side of Magnolia, north of La Palma Avenue.
78-456
Cf tv lt~ll, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 18, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
t)n mot[on by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, specific plans on
Reclassification No. 73-74-55(7) were approved. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-60 - REVISED PLANS: Request by Robert Warmington
Company for approval of revised plans for Reclassification No. 76-77-60 on
proposed CL zoned property for a commercial office complex located on the
south side of Ball Road and east of State College Boulevard was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, revised plans on
Reclassification No. 76-77-60 were approved. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3847 THROUGH 3851: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance Nos. 3847
through 3851, both inclusive, for first reading.
129: ORDINANCE NO. 3847: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 6,
CHAPTER 6.32, SECTION 6.32.060 RELATING TO DISCHARGING FIREARMS AND FIREWORKS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3848: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-14(1), RS-HS-22,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3849: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-40, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3850: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Tract 10031, RS-5000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3851: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Tract 9751, RS-HS-10,000)
PAC COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by
Councilman Seymour, Mr. Warren Hunziker was appointed to serve on the Project
Area Committee, replacing Mr. Fleishour, for the term ending June 30, 1979.
MOTION CARRIED.
FORMATION OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE: Councilman Roth submitted to the Council
a plan and basis for the formation of a charter review committee for discussion
at the next Council meeting.
RECESS: Councilman Kott moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. to the multipurpose room
of the Central Library, 500 West Broadway Street, to consider General Plan
Amendment No. 145, EIR No. 212, and a new Circulation Element. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:08 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:30 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott (entered at 7:55 p.m.)
Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Ron Smith
78-457
Central Library, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 145~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 212 AND A NEW CIRCULATION ELEMENT: To consider land alternatives for six
areas and a new Circulation Element:
AREA
I--a parcel of land encompassing 5.8 acres northeast of the intersection
of Haster Street and Simmons Avenue.
AREA
II--a parcel of land encompassing 2.49 acres located on the east side of
State College Boulevard, generally south of Viking Avenue, extending
generally to Vermont Avenue.
AREA III--a parcel of land encomDassin~ approximately 40 acres northeast of
the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue.
AREA IV--a parcel of land encompassing 28,000 plus square feet adjacent to
the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street.
AREA
V--a parcel of land encompassing approximately 16 acres adjacent to the
southwest corner of Rampart Street and Orangewood Avenue.
AREA
VI--a parcel of land encompassing approximately 150 acres east of the
Santa Ana Freeway, south of Katella Avenue, north of Orangewood
Avenue, and west of State College Boulevard.
AREA VII--Circulation Element (roadway widths, generalized locations and City
policies).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-39 recommended no
change to the present General Plan designation for the 5.8 acres located northeast
of the intersection of Haster and Simmons Avenue, Area I; no change to the present
General Plan designation for the 2.49 acres located on the east side of State
College Boulevard, generally south of Viking Avenue, Area II; that Exhibit "J" be
adopted for the 40 acres located northeast of Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue,
bounded by Harbor Boulevard, Chapman Avenue, the Garden Grove City Limits, and Wilken
Way, Area III; that Exhibit "D" be adopted for the 28,000 plus square feet located
adjacent to the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street, Area IV; that
Exhibit "A" be adopted for the 16 acres located adjacent to the southwest corner of
Rampart Street and Orangewood Avenue, Area V; that Exhibit "B" be adopted for the
150 acres located east of the Santa Ana Freeway, south of Katella Avenue, north
of 0rangew00d Avenue, and w~st of Stat~ Collage Boulevard, Area VI; that no change
be made to the Circulation Element of the General Plan at this time since hearings
will be forthcoming in the near future, Area VII. In addition, the City Planning
Commission having considered EIR No. 212 finds that no significant environmental
impacts would be mitigated by the requirement for conformance with established City
and State codes, policies, plans and ordinances, and recommends to the City Council
that they certify that EIR No. 212 is in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and with City and State EIR Guidelines.
Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, first recommended that a motion
be made at the conclusion of testimony and discussion on each item, and at the con-
clusion of all. items that the actions be included in one resolution. Further, he
asked that the Council postpone Item VII, the Circulation Element. Therefore it
78-4 r~8
Central= ........ LibratLy_, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April. 18~ 1978, 7:30 P.M.
would not be discussed, but terminated and readvertised in approximately 45 days
with that action to be included in the final resolution. Mr. Schwartze then gave
a brief explanation on the purpose of the General Plan as well as the preliminary
steps already taken relative to General Plan Amendment No. 145 which involved
citizen participation. He also referred to the Report to Commissioners, General
Plan Amendment No. 145 prepared by the Anaheim City Planning Department containing
a detailed explanation of all six proposed land uses including vicinity location
maps as well as land use alternatives as shown in the various exhibits (on file
in the City Clerk's office).
The Mayor first ascertained the number of people in the audience interested in
each area, I through VI, the highest interest indicated in Areas I, II and III.
Thus, while awaiting the arrival of Councilman Kott, he recommended that the
less controversial items be considered first.
AREA V - EXHIBITS "A" through "D": Mr. Ron Smith, Associate Planner, working from
the posted diagram, reported that in terms of alternatives, Exhibit "A" carried
the recommendation of the City Planning Commission calling for commercial in the
frontage of the property at the Orangewood-Rampart intersection with professional
behind; Exhibit "B" proposed all commercial uses on the entire 16 acres; Exhibit
"C", all professional, and Exhibit "D", recreational commercial. The City-owned
property was currently designated CO and placed in escrow to be sold.
~yor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding Area V;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing on that Area.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adopt Exhibit "A" for Area V as recommended by the
City Planning Commission. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Kott
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
AREA VI - EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "D": Mr. Smith reported that the subject area was
presently designated commercial/recreation, but in the last ten years it was zoned
and developed as industrial land. He then summarized the exhibits: Exhibit "A"
reflected the existing zoning and land uses in the area; Exhibit "B" showed all
industrial land uses and carried the recommendation of the City Planning Commission;
Exhibit "C" proposed a new category designation of commercial manufacturing allowing
commercial sale of goods manufactured or produced on the premises with commercial
manufacturing uses along the frontage of Anaheim Boulevard and Orangewood, and
industrial in the center core; Exhibit "D" proposed commercial manufacturing for the
entire area.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding Area VI;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing on that Area.
Councilman Roth moved to adopt Exhibit "B" for Area VI as recommended by the City
Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Kott
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
AREA IV - EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "D": Mr. Smith explained that the property was
currently vacant and the proposed amendment was an owner-initiated request for a
commercial designation on the property. The Planning Commission concurred in that
request, Exhibit "D". The alternative proposed were Exhibit "A", low-medium
residential; Exhibit "B", office professional uses; Exhibit "C", medium density
res iden ti al.
78-459
Ce~tral Library, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April ]8~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding Area IV.
Marjorie Haley, 1774 Heather Street, explained that she had lived at that address
for 15 years, and her property abutted the subject vacant lot. She had spoken to
the residents in the area and they were all in favor of the property being upgraded
with small businesses and they favored the Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilman Kott entered the Multipurpose Meeting Room. (7:55 P.M.)
Mr. Herman Flum, 14205 Hatteras, Van Nuys, stated he owned the property since
approximately 1954 when it subdivided. At that time, he purchased 180 lots in
the subdivision and built a number of houses immediately adjacent to the site.
In connection with his petition for amendment to the General Plan, he canvassed
the neighborhood and obtained 12 signatures of adjacent property owners on a
petition previously submitted. He also obtained 12 more signatures on a petition,
a copy of which he submitted to the City Clerk, all in favor of the proposed
commercial designation. In concluding, Mr. Flum stated he favored the commercial
designation and also stated that he assured the property owners that it would be
a single-story development as opposed to a two-story development which they did
not want.
Mr. Daniel Haley stated he was in full support of the plan as recommended by the
City Planning Commission.
There being no further persons who wished to speak relative to Area IV, the Mayor
closed the public hearing on that Area.
Councilman Roth moved to adopt Exhibit "D", as recommended by the City Planning
Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
AREA I - EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "F" AND ALTERNATES: Mr. Smith described the location
as well as the six alternatives proposed for Area I which was currently designated
for low-medium and medium density on the City's General Plan. Mr. Smith then pointed
out adjacent land uses from an aerial map showing the subject 5.8 acres. The parcel
had gone through tract map procedures approximately six months prior, and at that
time the City Council requested a General Plan Amendment be conducted in the area
as to alternatives in various forms of land uses. The alternatives proposed were,
Exhibit "A", low density residential (7 units per gross acre) on 5.8 acres; Exhibit
"B", low density residential on 2.3 acres; low-medium density (18 units per gross
acre) on .3 acres and medium density (36 units per gross acre) on 3.2 acres;
Exhibit "C", medium density on 5.8 acres; Exhibit "D", low-medium density on 5.8
acres; Exhibit "E", low density on 2.3 acres, low-medium on 3.5 acres; Exhibit "F",
low density on 2.6 acres, low-medium density on 3.2 acres.
Mr. Smith then reported on the alternatives to Exhibits "A", "B", "E" and "F", noting
that under Alternate "A", low density, if applied to only a portion of the site, the
yield would be about 28 lots in all, 24 on Mr. Clow's property. They also evaluated
the possibility of different size lots such as RS-7200 on the frontage and RS-5000
in the middle of the property. Exhibits "B", "E" and "F" all had similar configura-
tions involving cul-de-sac streets coming off Simmons and Mountain View with
single-family lots in the frontage area and attached units behind and other like
alternatives.
78-460
C_ej!t_rj~j__Lib_r_..!ry, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
bh-. Smith continued that staff had a great deal of discussion with the community
wherein several concerns arose, amongst which was the subject of crime in that
area which contained 2.7 percent of the total population of the City. Captain
Kennedy of the Police Department reported, however, that it experienced only 1.1
percent of the total crime in the Type I category. Police Chief Bastrup had been
informed of the community concern relative to the crime situation.
Another concern also surfaced regarding the Garden Grove Community Church in that
Dr. Schuller and his congregation were evaluating various vacant parcels of land
in the subject area. Staff spoke to Reverend Kelly, Dr. Schuller's business
associate, and he indicated the Church had evaluated various sites in that area of
the City, but had since ruled them out. As well, they were no longer looking at
the old White Front site or the Mausoleum site off the Santa Ana Freeway although
they had contemplated those sites.
In concluding, Mr. Smith stated that in this particular case, staff had gone beyond
the General Plan requirements in trying to evaluate community concern, and, as well,
a resident survey had been mailed to 221 property owners in the area, and responses
received from 75, the result of which had already been submitted to the Council;
63 of 75 requesting single-family residential designation.
The Mayor asked first if the property owners wished to address the Council regarding
Area I.
Mr. Dan L. Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, first stated
that they had examined the practical design implementation sketches, and he could
speak to those with technical authority and would do so later in the meeting. Rela-
tive to the subject property, it had been indicated on the Anaheim General Plan for
at least 10 years as medium density residential. Based on that commitment, the
property owner, Mr. Clow, was holding it for the time when he could develop it
accordingly. Thus, he approached the Planning Commission a year prior with a
multiple-family project consisting of 4-plexes and tri-plexes accompanied by a
number of variances, which project was turned down by the Planning Commission.
They subsequently redesigned the project, eliminated all variances, and then pro-
posed a project containing approximately 47 multiple-family units when, by ordinance,
the property could accommodate 81 units. Before resubmitting the plan to the Planning
Commission, Mr. Clow invited the area residents to a meeting at the Paul Revere
School, and presented the plan to them where he received the friendly agreement that
it was a better plan than previously proposed, but they still preferred single-family
residences. A Planning Commission hearing was set at the time, but in the interim,
Mr. Clow asked if he (Rowland) would reevaluate the plan to ascertain if some other
alternative would be more compatible with the fears and objections of the residents.
Thereupon an RM-4000 single-~amily home project was devised, comprised of townhouses
with 34 units which they believed answered all of the concerns and presented it to
the Planning Commission with no variances or exceptions to City ordinances. Several
letters were subsequently received, two of which he had with him from homeowners
groups and the attorney who professed to represent them indicating support for an
RM-4000 project. However, there were other problems and concerns which surfaced
at the Planning Commission hearing. Although the change in RM-4000 was approved by
the Planning Commission, the matter was set for a public hearing before the Council
at the meeting of October 8, 1977, by Councilman Thom whereupon it was denied at the
78-461
Central Librar¥~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978, 7:30 P.M.
meeting of November 18, 1977. Since that time, Mr. Clow held to the program previ-
ously presented.
Mr. Rowland then elaborated on some points which he believed were not apparent on
General Plan Amendment No. 145: the subject property was separated from parcels
west of it by an arterial highway (Haster). The bulk of the property on Simmons
posed the greatest concern and captured the greatest attention, however, starting
at the arterial, the first ten blocks on the south side of Simmons were in Garden
Grove and the zoning ordinance in that area permitted 10 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Clow was asking that he be allowed to develop at 8 units per acre, and the
adjoining property to the east of the 10 lots was in Orange, allowing 6 units per
acre. Of that property, there were only two that faced Clow's property in the
City of Orange. Further, the property representing the extension of Mountain View
(a north/south street) and the property to the east of that did not belong to Mr. Clow.
Mr. Rowland's main thrust was that in the practical design implementation maps
presented by staff, Mountain View was extended in through where Single-family
residences were represented. Thus, access was from a street over which Mr. Clow
had no control, and he did not expect the City to turn it over to him for such
purposes. Therefore, the plans were not implementable without further acquisition
of property by Mr. Clow, but he had no plans to purchase additional property.
In the City of Anaheim, any impact area was designated as 300 feet. In this instance,
there were 21 single-family residences within the City of Anaheim within 300 feet
of Mr. Clow's property, and 15 were west of any arterial highway. If all concerns
were relative to Anaheim primarily, that specific impact had to be considered. Mr.
Rowland then reviewed each alternative proposed in detail and demonstrated what would
occur if any of the plans proposed were adopted, all of which would require variances.
In concluding that portion of his presentation, he emphasized that the property was
impossible to develop in an orderly fashion if it was torn up and subdivided, other-
wise at least a handful of exceptions would be necessary if it was not kept in one
piece.
Mr. Rowland then referred to the petition signed by some 600 residents of tbe area,
and contended that in looking at a map of the whole area, the subject property could
not have any impact, and did not have any influence on any other property in the
triangle encompassing three voting precincts. He maintained that, in fact, it was
one of the least impacted areas of the City of Anaheim for several reasons, the
major one being that a great portion of the area was taken up by The City Shopping
Center, and the other by the huge site of the Melrose Abbey Mausoleum which was not
apt to be redeveloped. To the south of the subject property lay Orange and Garden
Grove over which the City of Anaheim had no control. He also reiterated that one
piece of the property was separated from the western part of the community by a
very heavily traveled street and an arterial and by other cities on the south boundary.
Relative to the park system, Ponderosa was the Anaheim park in the area people
indicated they did not have access to, as well as the fact that there were park
problems. There were also 3 other parks within that service area (Sierra, Pioneer
and Twin Lakes) and although not in Anaheim, could be reached as easily as
Ponderosa. However, their proposal of RM-4000 with only 34 units would provide
a swimming pool, tennis courts and open space which would help to alleviate park
congestion problems.
? 8-4t'2
Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 18, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
Relative to the streets, Mr. Rowland stated that the residents had a legitimate
complaint about Simmons because it was a difficult street upon which to travel,
and in trying to access to Haster. It was only a one-half street, the north
half never having been improved. Once the subject property was developed, it
would be improved to a full street with another lane added at the stop sign,
enabling a right hand turn. The City Traffic Engineer, as well as their own
engineer, as a result of studies made, indicated that left-turn pockets would
also alleviate as far as possible the problem of making a turn from a collector
to an arterial.
Regarding the school situation, both the elementary and the Anaheim Union High
School District indicated that vacancies existed in the schools thus the project
would have no impact on the schools even if multiple-family.
Transportation-wise, the area was served by both the Orange County Transit District
and the Southern California Rapid Transit District on Haster Street.
In concluding, Mr. Rowland stressed the site was perfect for the project, it was
a single-family project sold to indivuals and it was affordable housing although
rising continually. To build single-family residences in that area would be more
than that market could bear considering that a lot only in Anaheim cost approximately
$15,000. In his opinion, the only single-family housing program that would be a
viable one in that area would be HUD 236 because of the low interest rates accom-
panying that program, but Mr. Clow was not interested in a subsidized program.
Mayor Seymour stated that it was obvious Mr. Rowland had just "shot holes" in every
alternative proposed by staff, but he found it difficult to believe that the property
had no other alternative than that proposed by Mr. Clow. Mr. Rowland answered that
there were probably an infinite number of alternatives given the location, the time
frame, the cost of improving the property and the like.
Mayor Seymour continued that the Council charged the Planning Commission with
evaluating that area and they surmised the time was now and the Council, as well,
felt the time was right. He wanted to know if Mr. Rowland had any other specific
or general alternative other than the proposal brought before the Council at the
last public hearing which was, in fact, the present plan.
Mr. Clow indicated there was no other alternative at this time, and they had
devoted a good deal of thought to the matter. However, the depth from Simmons
Street north presented a problem in that it presented a physical limitation.
It could be developed in the manner as some of the alternatives proposed, but to
do so would be forcing the land badly and not developing a project that would
serve the community, the neighborhood or the Clows.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak on behalf of the property owner.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney representing Mr. Clow, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton,
stated that the property was designated on the General Plan as low-medium and
medium density the past 10 years to provide a transition from Haster easterly to
the single-family residences on Vern Street to the east. When the property was
considered, already existing were 2-story apartments to the north. If the subject
property at that time was designated single-family residential, RM-7200 or RM-5000,
it would have violated a long standing Anaheim principle; no single-family
78-463
Central Library, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
residences within 150 feet of 2-story residential structures. Any single-family
residences on the north side of Mr. Clow's property would therefore have an in-
trusion, which fact was a paramount consideration in the development of any property
close to such residences.
Mr. Farano then emphasized the odd shape of Mr. Clow's property with the westerly
portion facing Haster which was not only an arterial, but designated as a primary
arterial. On Haster, the frontage was 100 feet wide from north to south and
approximately 300 feet in the easterly direction. This configuration thus presented
an extremely difficult task to develop with any intelligent approach. In speaking
with the homeowners' former counsel, Mr. Netty, he insisted on single-family residences,
but when the shape of the property was called to his attention, Mr. Netty responded
that multiple-family or townhouses could be built across the back portion of the
property. Mr. Farano contended, however, that the exhibits illustrated that a
number of variance problems would be involved, and an unworkable situation would
thus evolve.
Relative to the Mayor's question, Mr. Farano stated it was not that the property
could not be developed in another manner, but in order to do so intelligently, it
had to be done as an entire unit. He reiterated the entire piece of property had
to have one zone so it could be developed en masse with consistency throughout. In
examining staff's alternatives, to divide it with a joint development was tantamount
to specific zoning not consistent with the Anaheim General Plan, nor with what the
City had done in the past.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to address the Council relative to Area I.
Mr. James Thies, 2131 South Spinnaker, President of Tri-Cities Homeowners Association,
first took issue with the statement made that only a small area would be affected
by placing 35 to 40 units of housing in a given area without such action affecting
the rest of the ~eople in the general area. The residents had been fighting the
proposed multiple-family project since May of 1977, and their numbers increased to
where they had formed a dues-paying association.
Mr. Thies first spoke to the crime rate wherein a study done by the City indicated
crime was not a problem. Subsequently, a task force was assigned to study the
situation, and it indicated that this was the highest crime rate area in the City
of Anaheim according to figures he received from the Police Department on April 17,
1978. Thus, any development placed in the area would accentuate the already existing
crime problem.
Mr. Thies continued that while Mr. Clow had the right to develop his property as
he wished, he did not care what happened to the rest of the families living there.
Mr. Thies then presented some facts from a study performed by the Federal government
relative to what composed a good City plan. It was ascertained that although apart-
ments and multiple-family dwellings presented some good advantages at the outset such
as higher tax revenue for City, pleasing appearance, lower cost to purchasers, the
following was also true, and subsequently occurred: it was a very high transient
and turnover rate, low pride in ownership, housing deterioration, single-family
homeowners in the area ultimately vacated the neighborhood enabling more high density
projects to move in, and houses were downgraded. Mr. Thies' main thrust was that
it was important to keep the inner city as much a single-family owner-occupied
residential area as possible. If an individual owned property, he therefore had
an amount of pride in that ownership.
78-41,4
Anaheim, (]a[ifornia- COUNCIL MINUTES -April 18, ]978, 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Thies further contended that if Mr. Clow developed bis property into a neat
package, it would preclude any other development, and there were other property
owners in the area who would then have no alternative but to sell their property
to Mr. Clow or develop it into higher density uses.
Mr. Thies took issue with Mr. Rowland's statment to the effect that condominiums
were a nice blend into a single-family area from high density dwellings. He (Thies)
maintained that condominiums were more or less walled in cities that did not blend
with anything. Theirs was one of the nicest communities in Anaheim, and they
wanted to keep it that way precluding inner walled mini-cities.
In concluding, Mr. Thies emphasized if multiple dwellings were permitted against
the wishes of the neighborhood, it would be a matter of allowing a project that
was disliked at the outset, and if there was an automatic dislike of the neighbors
before they moved in, he wondered what the situation would be like thereafter and
in the future. They wanted the General Plan to reflect low density dwellings.
Janice Staley, 104 West Tiller, stated that besides being affected by Area I, she
was also being affected by Area III. She took issue with the fact that her children
and those on her block would not go to Anaheim schools. Although the Council did
not draw the school boundary lines, by allowing more people into the area, their
children could go to Anaheim schools, but her children could not. As well, Garden
Grove could not afford to bus children thus, their children would be walking. Mrs.
Staley also touched upon the park situation in the area which she considered less than
desirable. She also stated there were three bus stops located by her home and her ~
fence was always being torn down. People would have to be on her side of the street
when they went shopping, and thus her property was subject to more damage than at
present.
Dr. Henry Foster, 2158 Jetty Drive (17-year resident), emphasized how much he liked
the community in which he lived as was true of the other residents. They were con-
cerned about what happened to their community as evidenced by the newly formed Tri
Cities Homeowners Association which included members from the adjoining cities of
Orange and Garden Grove. They did not want their area to deteriorate. He asked
Council's serious consideration in keeping the area entirely single-family
residences which he felt could be profitable to the property owners with a great
deal less cost to the City.
Gerald Ghelfe, 4542 West Simmons, Orange, explained that he lived just opposite
the proposed extension of Mountain View which extension he considered a dreadful
suggestion should it ever materialize. He first reiterated as recommended at a
previous hearing that the burden of Police patrolling the area should not only
be borne by Anaheim, but also Orange and Garden Grove, and he suggested a memo-
randum be sent to the City of Orange reminding them of their responsibility in
that particular area of Orange. He continued that he supported single-family
homes, but not with the configuration of opening up Mountain View because it would
permit all of the multiple-family unit area to the north to come pouring out onto
Simmons which was already a busy street. The homeowners in the area were unani-
mous in not wanting Mountain View extended, and he urged the Council to keep
Mountain View sealed off as a cul-de-sac.
78-465
Central Library, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -April 18, 1978~ 7:]0 P.M.
In concluding, he noted on an earlier item that the owner consulted the surrounding
property owners and solicited their support for his proposal. He maintained that if
the same approach had been used in this case with a more open exchange attempted
much earlier, a great deal of the difficulty would not have occurred.
He restated support for single-family homes with Mountain View remaining closed.
Jan Murphy, 329 East Kirkwood (resident since 1961), stated that the elementary
school in the area was Revere, Junior High School was Ball, and children were
always bused. To her knowledge, high school students in the area did not attend
Anaheim High School, but Katella, and there was no way to get to Katella other
than driving, the RTD or bicycle.
Relative to Mountain View, Mrs. Murphy was concerned that if it were opened up,
other problems would occur, and, in fact, they had houses burned in their neigh-
borhood. With the knowledge of statisics on crime, if that property was of such
great importance to Mr. Clow as expressed by Mr. Rowland, she wondered why he would
want to build in a very high crime rate area.
Mr. Don Tomiolo, 116 West Simmons, agreed with Mr. Ghelfe and Mrs. Murphy relative
to Mountain View, and as well, he stated there was an undesirable element at the
corner of Mountain View and Orangewood with drag racing up and down Orangewood. He
was also concerned over the welfare of the many small children in the area of
Mountain View and Wilken Way because of drag racing in that area.
Mr. Tomiolo's main point of contention was that the locale had more than its share
of multiple units, and some of the buildings in the area north of Orangewood were
already in a state of deterioration and that the streets contained wall-to-wall
cars. He predicted it would soon be a ghetto area, and since it was right in the
middle of the City's tourist area, it would project a poor image for the City.
In concluding, he was disturbed that the residents had to keep coming back to the
City and fighting for what they wanted. If the Council believed in a government
of the people, for the people and by the people, there was no other way for them to
vote but for detached single-family dwellings.
Diane Sheets, 335 Cliffwood, a resident homeowner in the area stated that because
she was in real estate, she knew from experience that people looked for homes in
an area that did not consist of condominiums and apartments mixed with single-family
homes. When there was a mixture of different types of developments, there was a
tendency for such developments to become walled-off cities. She proposed that
single-family homes would be the best use for the community. In her business, it
was obvious which homes had been rented because renters did not maintain the property.
As well, condominiums were easy to rent out, and they were not so expensive as to
preclude their use as an investment, whereas single-family homes did preclude
speculators because of cost. As a group, they wished to keep their neighborhood
as it was without multiple-family dwellings.
c_~,,_U~r_.LL !.jb_r_a__ry_z Anaheimt Cal. i[-ornia- COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18_Lj_978
Thelma Richardson, 4502 Simmons, Orange, stated that in the final analysis, she was
pleased that the project had been proposed and resolution of it ongoing because it
prompted a great many people to get together with the ultimate formation of a
homeowners association. Many possibilities had generated from it, and it was a
move in the direction of getting the City back to the people. Her preference was
single-family dwellings.
In summation, Mr. Rowland stated that one of the insidious aspects of the hearing
had probably been due to an oversight on his part in not making certain that every-
one was aware of his main point of contention relative to the single-family aspect
of the subject property. They were proposing single-family clustered homes classed
as RM because of a Planning Commission and administrative decision made some years
prior. It was a 4,000-square foot zone in a single-family zone recognized as single-
family, suitable for clustered housing and eminently suitable for parcels of land
difficult to develop. RM-4000 was included in a revision of the ordinances into
the multiple-family zone simply to enable them to develop in land that was already
zoned as multiple-family or indicated on the General Plan as multiple-family such
as the subject property. It was a down use that was perfectly recognized and
legitimized and the effect of making an RM-4000 instead of an RS-4000 had created
a hardship for Mr. Clow when, in fact, it was designed to promote the orderly
development of the community, and as called for by the General Plan, provided a
wide range of housing throughout the City. The 34 units proposed included recrea-
tional facilities, and while the President of the homeowners association was right
in indicating there would be an impact, it would be no more or very little more
than the 28 units proposed in one of the exhibits that in reality could not be
developed. Thus, the impact was only a matter of the difference between 28 and 34
units. Considering the fact that recreational facilities were included in the
project, there would be an offset in that regard. He emphasized they were speaking
about a single-family zone and many of the concerns Mr. Thies presented would be
taken care of by the proposed project.
Before concluding, Mr. Rowland agreed and stated it was not in the best interest of
the community to open Mountain View, and the first order of business when he became
involved with the project was to talk to the Traffic Engineer to preclude Mountain
View as an access point.
Mayor Seymour then stated that in all the controversy surrounding the property, he
received information which he wanted to verify that Mr. Clow was the developer of
the French Quarter and Latin Quarter apartments in that area.
From the audience, Mr. Clow stated that was not true. He had owned an interest in
the apartments after someone went bankrupt, but sold that interest years before.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing on Area I.
Mayor Seymour thereupon stated that the Council, in making its decision, should
not become overly concerned with the specific lot layouts given in the exhibits.
He believed it was extremely difficult as pointed out by Mr. Rowland to take the
subject property and split it and still intelligently plan it. However, he saw
nothing wrong with assigning a lesser density to the property than that which had
78-467
Central Library, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
been heretofore included in the General Plan. If the Plan was to be amended, they
should concern themselves with the type of density applicable to the entire piece
of ground. It concerned him that the Planning Commission concluded there was no
need for a lesser density in that subject area, and he recalled that the Council
earlier had turned down an apartment house not too distant from the subject prop-
erty on Orangewood which was called for by the General Plan because of the high
crime rate immediately north and west of the subject property. Although the
Council had tried, it was clear that they had not yet turned the corner in reducing
the crime rate in the area, and that had to be a consideration relative to the
quality and density of development proposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that she and the Mayor had voted against it,
but the Council approved the prior apartment project.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the density for the subject property
be found in Alternate Exhibit "A" speaking specifically to density and not the layout
of the number of lots (28 units); the intent in that amendment being to demonstrate
that the density in the area should be reduced unless something could be done about
the existing crime situation. Otherwise, every effort should be made not to add to
it. He explained that typically RS-5000 zoning would yield 6 units to the acre on
a fairly regular parcel of ground, and thus the irregular parcel involved might yield
less. Although the motion designated Exhibit "A", he believed the property would
probably best be developed through some type of planned unit development. Absolute
consideration must be given to not extending Mountain View. Therefore, when dealing
with an irregular parcel as ~ell as with the restriction that Mountain View not be
extended, some type of planned unit development would be required.
Mayor Seymour thereupon restated his motion and moved for the adoption of
Alternate Exhibit "A" as it pertained to the density of the property. Councilman
Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Schwartze explained that some clarification would be
necessary because it was not possible to have a zone designation under the General
Plan that would permit both single-family detached housing and low-medium density.
Mayor Seymour then wanted to know how he could designate low density and then
add the proviso that sometime in the future, either Mr. Clow or some other party
could propose a planned unit development.
Mr. Smith stated that if the direction of the Council was to adopt Exhibit "A",
low density, with the understanding that a planned unit development could be con-
structed, that type of wording could be added to the amendment.
Thereupon, Mayor Seymour clarified his motion which was to accept Alternate
Exhibit "A", adding a zoning density with the wording that the zoning density of a
planned unit development would be acceptable on the land.
Councilman Roth agreed with the motion since at the last public hearing, he indi-
cated that due to the shape and size of the parcel, it would be more beneficial
to the residents to have some type of planned unit development for that area. At
that time, he recommended a mix of single-family and possible multiple-family com-
bined. However, it was his opinion that Mayor Seymour's motion would insure
that the property could be properly utilized, and he thus supported the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as clarified. MOTION CARRIED.
tkUltff_~_l- Li__br__ajT'y, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 187 1978, 7:30 P.M.
I?irst, Mr. Rowland asked for clarification of the action whereupon Mr. Smith ex-
plained that Alternate Exhibit "A" bad been approved with the understanding that
a planned unit development would be allowed provided densities were no greater than
low density designations, 7 units on a gross acre.
Mr. Thies expressed concern that Mr. Clow had just received approval of his condo-
min iums.
Thereupon, Mr. Smith further clarified that low density could occur in several ways:
(l) a standard single-family subdivision and (2) a planned unit development with
t~nits clustered in one form or another as long as the development met the same
density categories as low density. Thus, the density would have to be the same as
single-family in whatever type of development was planned.
The Mayor clarified the matter further upon additional questioning by Mr. Thies
and Mrs. Sheets as follows: relative to a planned unit development, it was a
matter of dealing with density with some developments having 2 units to the acre.
Going to the extreme, there was one development in Peralta Hills with 1 unit to
the acre. There was, however, a sharing of common areas or open space. The action
approved was an amendment to the General Plan changing the density on the subject
property from medium density, used for apartments, to low density used for detached
single-family residences, but with a provision that in the event a planned unit
development was submitted, the Council would look favorably on it provided the
density was no greater than a single-family residential development. He cautioned
that there could be changes because of the appeal process or variances could be
requested.
Mr. Smith also confirmed that the density of low density was 7 units to the acre,
that the last configuration submitted by Mr. Clow was 8 or 9 units to the acre and
thus a redesign would be necessary to take it to 7 units, and that essentially Mr.
Ctow could build 28 units on the property.
Mayor Seymour then stated on a question from the audience that if the homes
were single-family residences, they could be 2-story, that the units could be rental
properties just as with any other property, and the minimum number of square feet
per unit was 1,000.
The Mayor also assured the area residents that they would have another opportunity
to speak to the specific plan on the property unless the development was built to
single-family standards needing no variances.
AREA II - EXHIBIT "A" THROUGH "C": Mr. Smith described the location and the various
alternatives proposed for Area II involving the east side of State College Boulevard,
south of Viking Way, currently designated low density on the General Plan and developed
as such. The consideration for an amendment was initiated by the City Council some
four months prior when a variance was requested on Viking and State College Boule-
vard. The alternatives proposed were Exhibit "A", general commercial for the frontage
on State College Boulevard; Exhibit "B", low-medium density; Exhibit "C", office-
professional use. Mr. Smith stated that the Planning Commission decided to retain
78-469
Central Library~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
the existing low density designation on the General Plan, and recommended no modifi-
cation. He further stated that staff also did some site design on the property noting
that State College Boulevard was a major arterial and a primary arterial in the area
north of Anaheim Stadium. Thus, site design considerations could be applied with
slump stone walls in the front yard to provide a buffer between the arterial highway
and single-family residences. Also, meandering walks and thicker landscaping could
be applied in the area providing an isolation to the existing single-family residen-
tial property if desired.
Councilman Roth noted the absence of a fourth proposal, that being to remove existing
structures and assembling parcels only with the installation of a block wall fence on
the eastern boundary to prevent disruption to single-family residences to the rear.
A brief discussion followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Smith relative to that
possible alternative.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council on Area II.
Mr. Willie Rush, 2110 East Vermont, spokesman for approximately 30 homeowners in
the area, stated that they opposed all three alternatives (A, B and C) and the
majority of the people wished the area to remain as at present, low density. He
then submitted a copy of a petition previously submitted to the Planning Commission
supporting that position. Mr. Rush then outlined the reasons why the neighborhood
was so desirable from the standpoint of those living in it, and also the detrimental
effects they believed would occur if it was rezoned to commercial, especially relative
to traffic and crime. Further, there was no need to use the area for commercial
purposes since there were other areas of the City available for those uses, and pres-
ently there was a greater scarcity of affordable single-family residential homes than
businesses.
Mary Lou Schultz, 829 South Reseda (14-year resident), outlined her reasons for
wanting to live in the subject neighborhood amongst which was the tax structure
even though it had increased over the years. Since taxes were raised in order
to develop the downtown area, she wanted her money to be spent in that area and
not for any more commercial zoning in her neighborhood. She also added that
traffic accompanying more commercial zoning would be detrimental to the area;
their property would be damaged by people walking over lawns in general disrespect,
and the proposed wall, as mentioned by staff, would limit access to the 20-foot
wide alley shared by people on State College and Reseda. Mrs. Schultz then pre-
sented two letters from neighbors, Michael Voe§tly and Jennie Fahrion, giving
reasons why they wished the area to remain single-family residences (made a part
of the record).
Mr. Robert Wright, representing Anaheim Gardens Homeowners Association, submitted
a petition signed by 94 people from 84 homes opposing any change in zoning, and
supporting the recommendation that the area remain low density, single-family
residential. Mr. Wright then outlined some of the points contained in the General
Plan Amendment report relative to the outcome of the survey conducted by the Planning
Department of the residents in the are~ as well as the criteria developed by staff
in 1967 wherein they did not propose that the area of State College Boulevard con-
vert to commercial uses. He also read aloud a prepared statement giving the reasons
why Anaheim Gardens Homeowners Association was opposed to Amendment No. 145 to the
78-~.70
(,UIt_!? [ J~i_l?_r_Lrj!~,__A;~qJ~'_!_m_~ (:a I i forni~'~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - Af)ril 1.8, 1978 ~ 7: 30 P.M.
(;,'neral Plan, Area [I, and supporting the Planning Commission recommendation that
it remain single-family residential (made a part of the record). He also submitted
p[~otographs depicting some of the problems referred to relative to the outcome of
Cbc impact of increased traffic.
There being no further persons who wished to speak regarding Area II, the Mayor
closed the public hearing on that area.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that no change be made to Area II on General Plan
Amendment No. 145, and that it remain low density, single-family residential in
accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Councilman Kott
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
AREA III - EXHIBIT "A" THROUGH "I": Mr. Smith reported that Area III encompassed
approximately 41 acres at the corner of Harbor and Chapman predominantly zoned
general commercial. The site was currently developed partially commercial; however,
he pointed out from a diagram the location on the property of a boarded-up old White
Front store which had been sitting in that condition for several years. Mr. Smith
stated that 9 alternatives were presented to the Planning Commission: Exhibit "A",
proposing existing general commercial in 16.18 acres and low-medium density (up to
18 units per gross acre) on 24.91 acres; Exhibit "B", a minor modification to
Exhibit "A", with the frontage along Chapman designed low-medium to allow develop-
ment in a continuous manner and adjacent for access purposes to Chapman; Exhibit "C",
existing general commercial on 16.18 acres and medium density residential (up to
36 units per gross acre) on 24.91 acres; Exhibit "D", existing general commercial on '--
13.22 acres; commercial professional on 9.25 acres; and medium density residential
on 18.62 acres; Exhibit "E", essentially a minor modification to Exhibit "C", with
medium density shown on Chapman, replacing commercial adjacent to the City of Garden
Grove; Exhibit "F", existing general commercial on 6.69 acres; medium density
residential on 22.49 acres and low density residential (up to 7 units per gross acre)
on 9.11 acres; Exhibit "G", existing general commercial on 6.01 acres; commercial
professional on 23.17 acres and low density residential on 11.91 acres; Exhibit "H",
existing general commercial on 16.18 acres; medium density residential on 15.96
acres and iow density residential on 11.91 acres; Exhibit "I", existing commercial
on 16.18 acres and low density residential on 24.91 acres.
~e Planning Commission recommendation however was a tenth alternative reached as
a result of compromise between the area residents and property owners who initiated
the request. Working from the Exhibit, Mr. Smith stated that Exhibit "J" consisted
of commercial along the frontage of Harbor and part of Chapman (from Toys R Us
extending along Chapman to the Goodyear Store) with medium density residential
occuring directly behind that. Mr. Smith also clarified for Councilman Kott that
from the discussion before the Planning Commission, the residents were satisfied
with Exhibit "J" which was arrived at between the developer, Mr. Asawa and his staff,
and the residents in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing. There was a
great deal of discussion before the Commission regarding Tiller Street and the
single-family residences requested that it not be extended into the site because
it would create additional traffic. Further, the main difference between Exhibit
"H" and "J" was the size of the commercial area.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Planning Commission recom-
mendation "J", Area II of General Plan Amendment No. 145.
78-4 71
Central Library, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
Mr. Charles G. Ball, Business Properties, 170 Skypark Boulevard, Irvine, stated
that they owned approximately 14 acres of the subject property and were planning
to develop a maximum of 8 acres, mainly the frontage on Harbor from Toys R Us
southerly, as a neighborhood shopping center. It was their opinion that profes-
sional or office type uses were not needed in the area, and that residential was
the only viable alternative for the balance of the property. They had entered
into an agreement to sell the excess property to Sand Dollar, Inc., for develop-
ment as residential. Mr. Ball favored the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mr. Randy Blanchard, Vice President and Secretary of Sand Dollar Development
Corporation explained that they had fee title to 9 acres of the property, and had
acquired an escrow with Mr. Ball on the balance. They had also been in nego-
tiations with Mr. Bill Asawa and James Askins on the White Front property and
hoped soon to be in a position to say they had an interest in 24 acres which
they would be developing. Alternate Exhibit "J" was acceptable to them since,
in looking at the commercial element of the property itself, it was their idea
to tie the Harbor frontage around to Chapman to the Goodyear store which they
presently owned, and Exhibit "J" provided for this. Relative to the balance as
residential property, they met with the Planning Commission and some of the
residents and were agreeable to residential on the balance of the property.
Councilman Roth asked if they planned to put units in that area if they acquired
the White Front property.
Mr. Blanchard indicated they would build low density type housing as opposed to
units, either townhouses or a planned unit development.
Mr. Bill Asawa, 540 North Golden Circle Drive, Santa Ana, stated that he was
speaking in favor of Exhibit "J". He explained that there were 3 major property
owners involved, and they all favored the Planning Commission recommendation.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to Exhibit "J" or had
some other comments relative to it.
Dr. Henry Foster, speaking for the Tri-Cities Homeowners Association, first
stated that they were pleased at the prospect of the White Front "eyesore" being
eliminated, but their concern relative to "J" was due to the fact that it would
present the same problems as expressed regarding Area I (Haster and Simmons).
Apartments or housing with a similar concentration of transient population would
result in a high crime area, no pride of ownership and place a strain on schools.
A ghetto area would be created in close proximity to the City's Convention Center
and main tourist area. They, therefore, encouraged the Council to seriously con-
sider the recommendations involving as low a density as possible and lower than
that recommended in "J". A planned unit development would be acceptable to the
Tri-Cities Homeowners Association.
Mrs. Lee Staley, 104 West Tiller, stated that she was under the impression that
development was going to be low density as they were already surrounded by apart-
ment houses. One end of the street was Area I, just discussed, and the subject
area was at the other end. Tiller dead-ended into the back of White Front which
they wanted to see removed and replaced with single-family dwellings. She emphasized
8-4 72
C.cn_t_!-j:il~_jJi_bra~X, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1.87 j._97__8_, 7:30 P.M.
that they were also surrounded by Orangewood, Harbor, Chapman and Haster. All
ol Orangewood on the north down to Haster to the north on both the left and right
sides contained nothing but apartments. That area could not take any more apart-
m~mts, and they were opposed to any such multiple-family additions.
Mr. Charles Dearborne, 2241 South Oertley, stated that his property was adjacent
to and right behind the White Front store. He first explained some of the problems
revolving around the building and its deteriorating condition. When discussing
Plan "J" at the Planning Commission hearing, it was his understanding that the
low-medium density was all going to be low density, and he was not in favor of
apartment houses. He was told not to be concerned because 150 feet behind his
property would be restricted to single-story buildings. However, if he was to
buy a house, he would not do so right behind a group of apartments. Thus, be
was opposed to any multiple-family dwellings or high density in that area. He
preferred Exhibit "H" as he believed the commercial along Harbor and Chapman would
not affect homeowners to any great degree.
Mrs. Holly Reese, 141 West Tiller, stated that they were all at the Planning
Commission hearing and they believed that a residential development was going
to be low density rather than low-medium. If there was going to be any change,
they would want to limit the number of homes that could be placed on the property.
They were so close to Area I, that they did not want to subsequently experience
or have to eventually do battle to maintain the integrity of their neighborhood
just as those at Haster and Simmons. Mrs. Reese stated they would not oppose
perhaps condominiums where homeownership would be involved rather than a renting
population.
M~. Bill Asawa interjected that they did meet with Mr. Dick Kamphefner, Superintendent
of Parks, relative to the possibility of a park on a portion of the subject prop-
erty because the matter had been broached previously. Mr. Kamphefner subsequently
wrote a letter dated March 13, 1978, which Mr. Asawa read aloud wherein it was
indicated that due to the high cost of the property and declining revenues, such
an endeavor would not be economically sound. Mr. Asawa also confirmed that he
could accept single-family residences, low density or condominiums on the northeast
area of the property.
Mr. Blanchard stated that he did not want to go to something such as an R-1 zone
with a 10,000-square foot lot; Mr. Smith again clarified the number of units per
acre allowed under low-medium density and low density. Although Mr. Blanchard
could not commit to low density, 7 units per acre over the entire 24 acres, he
indicated what they needed was an.average over the entire parcel so they could
have some kind of mix on the property. He would try to divide it in half, and
use two different Jpproaches, for instance, R-1 on a portion of the property.
Mayor Seymour surmised that Mr. Blanchard could live with the same application
made to the property as in Area I; Mr. Blanchard indicated the only variable was
that the property ownership was not divided as depicted in Exhibit "J", and there-
fore was not representive of how the ownership was vested. However, he was in a
position to say that he could accept the modification of low density on that portion
of the property in question.
78-4 73
Central Libr.ary~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
~]~ere being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing on Area II.
Councilman Kott moved that Exhibi~ "J", as recommended by the Planning Commission,
be accepted relative to General Plan Amendment No. 145, amended to designate low
density on the northeastern boundary of the property. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Smith stated for the legal record that staff received
a communication from the State Department of Housing and Community Development on
the site. In reviewing the environmental impact report, they were concerned about
low and moderate income housing. Staff felt a reply would be necessary in the
official record to show how they arrived at all 10 configurations. A community
survey was taken, and based upon that and the responses received, staff prepared
the subject alternatives. They also asked the developer what the price of housing
would be in that area, and the developer indicated it would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods. Based upon the foregoing, it was staff's opinion that
they had complied with the request of the Department of Housing and Community
Development, as well as having evaluated the substantial impacts that would occur
in the EIR. Mr. Asawa confirmed that he concurred that the price of housing would
substantially be in compliance with prices in the surrounding neighborhoods.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion adopting Exhibit "J" as amended. MOTION
CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 212 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report
No. 212 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning
Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of
California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information
and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood that Environmental Impact Report No. 212 is in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality act and City and State Guidelines. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-247 for adoption, adopting Alternate
Exhibit "A", low density designation; could be Planned Unit Development but with
density no greater than single-family development for Area I; retaining existing
low density designation with no modification for Area. II; adopting Exhibit "K"
with low density designation on the northeastern boundary for Area III; adopting
Exhibit "D", general commercial use for Area IV; adopting Exhibit "A", commercial
in front, office/professional behind for Area V; adopting Exhibit "B", general
industrial for Area VI and postponing the Circulation Element to be discussed at
a later date. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-247: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 145, ALTER-
NATE EXHIBIT "A" FOR AREA I; NO CHANGE FOR AREA II; EXHIBIT "K" FOR AREA III;
EXHIBIT "D" FOR AREA IV' EXHIBIT "A" FOR AREA V; AND EXHIBIT "E" FOR AREA VI.
C,,ntra] Library, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 18, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
Roll Cai] Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-247 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 10:35 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CI~ CLERK