1978/12/1978-1674
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19; 1978; 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth, and Seymour
(entered at 2:40 P.M.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood called the meeting to order and welcomed
those in atttendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A Moment of Silence was observed for H.G. "Dad" Miller who was
seriously ill.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Councilman Overholt announced that at 1:37 P.M., he was served with Notice of
Intention to Circulate a Recall Petition by James Townsend, dated December 18,
1978, signed by Michael F. Valenti, T.B. Catterson, and Fernando Galaviz.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth,
minutes of the regular meeting held November 14, 1978 were approved subject
to typographical corrections. Councilman Seymour was absent. 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~
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $860,199.66, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized as recommended:
a. 164: Continued the award of Hidden Canyon Reservoir Contract (Account
No. 51-619-91280-31200) to December 26, 1978.
b. 174: Received and filed the status report on the Neighborhood Preservation
Programs.
78-1675
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDER: Councilman Kott offered
Resolution Nos. 78R-802 through 78R-804, both inclusive, for adoption as
recommended. Refer to Resolution Book.
174: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-802: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND
TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
123/140: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-803: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
MOTHER COLONY HOUSEHOLD, INC., CONCERNING TEMPORARY STORAGE SPACE IN THE MAIN
LIBRARY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LEASE
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
131: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-804: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING
THE FOLLOWING STREET BE ADDED TO THE FEDERAL. AID URBAN (FAU) SYSTEM OF HIGH-
WAYS: LA PALMA AVENUE FROM MAGNOLIA AVENUE WESTERLY TO THE BUENA PARK CITY
LIMIT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, and Roth.
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 78R-802 through 78R-804, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
144: ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM FOR 1979-80 FISCAL YEAR: Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-805 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated December 12, 1978 from the City Engineer, James Maddox, requesting that
the County of Orange include Anaheim Highway Improvement ProjeCt in the 1979-80
A.H.F.P. Refer to Resolution Book.
144: RESOLUTION 78R-805: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY
FINANCING PROGRAM CERTAIN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. (1979-1980)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth.
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-805 duly passed and adopted.
132: STATE LITTER CONTROL RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY GRANT: Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-806 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated December 12, 1978 from the Director of Public Works, Thornton Piersall,
authorizing the City Manager to file an application for funding under the litter
78-1676
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Control, Recycling and Resource Recovery Act in the amount of $34,703.00 and
reallocating these monies to the County of Orange for program utilization. Refer
to Resolution Book.
132: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-806: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING UNDER THE LETTER CONTROL, RECYCLING
AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NEC-
ESSARY DOCUMENTS THEREFOR.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, and Roth.
None
Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-806 duly passed and adopted.
155: FEES AND COST FOR PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS: Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-807 for adoption has recommended in memoran-
dum dated December 8, 1978 from Phillip Schwartze, Assistant Director for
Planning, authorizing a $250 fee for processing' environmental impact reports.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-807: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A PROCESSING FEE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
(EIR) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and RDth.
None
S eymo ur
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-807 duly passed and adopted.
150: OPPOSITION TO THE INCLUSION OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES ON THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES: City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a
member of the public wished to address the Council on the subject, and that a
communication had just been distributed to the Council Members from Mrs.
Diann Marsh relative to the matter.
Mr. Ronald Roluffs, 1591 Minerva, stated that a letter to the Keeper of the
National Register had been addressed to Mr. Norm Priest asking for informa-
tion on specific buildings within the application itself, pointing out
certain program responsibilities. He believed that the current action was
meant to abrogate those responsibilities, instead of accepting them. It is
easy to say that something was not historical, but in so doing, Mr. Priest
could reject any need to take staff time, or reply to information which had
already been forwarded to the Keeper of Historic Places. He was of the
opinion that Anaheim was doing a disservice to itself in not addressing the
problem presently or at the first opportunity possible before getting into a
struggle in Washington, D.C., which would ultimately occur if the city blatantly
disregarded the request and put forth no recommendation on the issue.
78-1677
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Roluffs how he received a copy of the letter
dated December 6, 1978 from the United States Department of the Interior,
which was addressed to Mr. Priest; Mr. Roluffs replied that a carbon copy of
the letter was sent to all pertinent people and Diann Marsh was one of those
people.
Councilman Roth stated he was certain that Mr. Priest had answered or would
be answering the letter, and it was not related to the matter under consider-
ation today.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if Mr. Roluffs had taken part in any of the pro-
ceedings when redirection took place and if so, had he spoken to the preservation
of any specific buildings at that time.
Mr. Roluffs stated that he had participated in those proceedings, but he did
not believe that the issue of the buildings was brought up at that time. In
any case, he was more interested in the realignment of Lincoln Avenue.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated it was interesting to note that after all of the
many hearings that took place, in which a great deal of input was provided,
that nothing was done relative to the buildings until contracts were let and
the buildings were being removed.
Mr. Roluffs answered that it was his understanding that contracts were still
being let and buildings being removed even after submitting the list to The
National Register.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated the submittal came forth after the contracts were
let, all according to a time schedule, and all proceedings were taking place.
Councilman Kott then questioned Mr. Priest as to, (1) why the matter was again
being broached since the Council had considered it previously and, (2) had he
responded to the December 6, 1978 letter.
Mr. Priest answered that he had responded and both of the buildings referred
to were presently in the proposed right-of-way of the realignment of Lincoln
Avenue, which realignment was approved by the Council in 1977. He responded
to the Department of Interior to that effect, pointing our that in addition,
there was several buildings on the list proposed which they felt should more
appropriately be considered at a local level, and they would be happy to work
with the people in preserving them. The reason the issue was brought up to the
Council once again was due to the fact that the original resolution was directed
to the State level, whereas it was now appropriate to reaffirm their position to
the Federal government.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood noted the nine- or ten-page letter the Council had just
received, allowing no time for review; Councilman Overholt asked Mrs. Marsh if
she would abstract the letter for theC ouncil since they had not been afforded
any time to read the document.
Mrs. Diann Marsh stated that she did not come prepared to speak and had only read
about the meeting in the paper, noting she had not been notified. She wanted to
clarify some things which she felt had been misconstrued. She stated that the
first time she had met anybody from the State Office of Historic Preservation was in
78-1678
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
the Redevelopment Office at an offical meeting with three State Representatives,
Messrs. Merritt, Padgett and Selway, and Kate Kocher and Gus Duran from the
Community Development Department, where afterwards they walked around town
to view the buildings. The first time she met Aaron Gallup, State Historian,
was at an official meeting in March regarding The National Register criteria
and process. (See letter dated December 19, 1978 on file in the City Clerk's
Office giving the details of the meetings and chronology of events which took
place). The first application they submitted was turned down because it was too
large in scope. However, the letter that was sent to them and to the Redevelopment
Agency pointed out how they could make the application acceptable. Therefore,
Redevelopment staff knew they were working on an application, and it was discussed
in their Historical Society Newsletters and survey meetings. Thus, to say that
no one knew about it was not correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if she had told Kate Kocher that she was submitting
an application.
Mrs. Marsh answered "yes" and stated it was discussed at survey committee meet-
ings last Spring when Tom Reeves and Emily Miller were present. Also, they
were never notified relative to the buildings but read in the paper that the
buildings were not historic because they were only thirty to fifty years old.
They did not know the Con~ission was going to discuss the matter, and she again
reiterated they did not hear about it until afterwards in the newspaper.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywoood referred to the August 8, 1978 minutes of the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and read the following: "...Ms. Marsh added that she had
been in touch with, and the following people have visited the downtown area to
review the buildings: Aaron Gallup, State Historian; William Padgett, County
Cultural Director; John Meritt, Survey Coordinator of the State of California;
and that her group has completed some other work which will be announced
during the latter part of this month." As of August 8, 1978 there was
no one in the City who knew the application had been submitted.
Mrs. Mar~h stated a research of the tapes of that meeting would indicate that
the wording was different than that stated. She had tried to explain to Mayor
Seymour that they had filed a National Register application and that the City
should have filed their legal notices.
Further discussion followed between Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood and Mrs. Marsh
relative to that specific point, at the conclusion of which, Mayor Pro Tem
Kaywood stated that apparently there was difficulty in communication on both
sides because nobody in the City knew she (Mrs. Marsh) had filed a one hundred-
page application listing, for example, the existing City Hall as being in
excellent condition when, in fact, it had been declared structurally unsound twice.
Mrs. Marsh then explained for Councilman Kott the people from the City with
whom she had been in contact regarding the matter, the first being the Community
Services Board in November, 1977 to request the Historical Survey money which
had been allocated as part of the Second Year Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program. In the final analysis, they decided to approach the Council
directly, at which time the survey was approved.
78-1679
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ I:30P.M.
Councilman Roth interjected that rather than continue, it was his understanding
that the State had forwarded their recommendations of certain buildings to the
National Register and the Council had already gone on record opposing the pre-
servation of certain buildings. The action today was merely reaffirming that
position; Mrs. Marsh confirmed that was correct. Councilman Roth thereupon
stated that he did not have any objection to holding off on any action for one
week if Mrs. Marsh wanted to supply additional information. He did not believe
there was any rush and did not think that either the State or Federal government
was paying any attention to the Local government.
Mrs. Marsh stated that January 1, 1979 was the deadline for voicing opposition.
Councilman Kott stated his concern revolved around the fact that the whole
issue seemed to center around the late sequence of events which took place.
There had to be some explanation as to why the Council at least had not heard
about all of the allegations of people knowing about the issue with meetings
taking place attended by staff people. Apparently that information had not been
passed on.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated that was an assumption as no one in the City knew
they had submitted the application, including the Historical Society under whose
name it was submitted. Mrs. Marsh countered that was not true and again a
further brief discussion followed revolving around that issue.
Mr. Priest stated that relative to the question asked as to whether or not they
were advised that an application was being submitted, the response was that
they should have known that there was a committee. Mrs. Marsh was correct in
that a committee was formed for the purpose of surveying structures in the old
town site, but not specifically downtown. However, they were not aware that an
application was being prepared until they were advised in August from the State
that such an application had been prepared. Mrs. Marsh was also correct in that
not only did Kate Kocher show Aaron Gallup around, but he (Priest) also partici-
pated at one point in time, wherein he and Mr. Gallup had lunch together.
Relative to the deadline being January 1, they had requested an extension on
that deadline. Further, in his judgment the discussion they were having was
one they had before; the issue being, did the Council wish to reaffirm their
stance relative to the application itself. He was not aware and staff was not
aware an application was being prepared on some twenty-three buildings. They
were aware there was an interest in historic preservation and that the State
had looked at the area, and there was a substantial period of time where they had
not heard from the State. However, he did not believe that that had any bearing
on the resolution presently before the Council. The point was, this was an
issue which had been taken first to the State and then to the Federal level with-
out local input particularly from the Council, as well as from his staff, prior
to submission. He, therefore, recommended and urged the Council to act upon
the resolution.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved to continue the matter one week for full Council
action. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated as Mr. Priest mentioned,
the issue at hand was not new. She again mentioned she had read the one
hundred-page application, and it was amazing to see all the buildings contained
78-1680
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
therein that were supposedly in excellent condition. She contended the
application was extremely faulty and contained no'input from City staff and
a well known architect had said there was nothing on the list of any
historic value.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the motion for continuance
because the Council had considered the matter before. He wanted Mrs. Marsh to
explain the letter because he did not have a chance to read it. With due
respect to Councilmen Kott and Roth, he did not believe a continuance would
change the Council's position, but they would again reaffirm their previous
position.
Councilman Kott agreed that their position was probably not going to change, but
what seemed to be forgotten so many times was that citizens and taxpayers in the
community had the right to address their legislative body. Whether he agreed
or disagreed with this or other issues, he was thankful that someone had the
courage to approach the Council to voice their views, and it should not evolve
into a vindictive procedure.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated that citizens and taxpayers and elected officials
went before the State Historical Commission and were insulted and dealt with
very rudely and not listened to. In this case, there was absolutely no input
from the City or staff of Anaheim and two people had submitted the application,
Dianm Marsh and Andrew Deneau.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion for continuance and failed to
carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
Councilman Overholt referred to the proposed resolution before them, stating he
appreciated what Mrs. Marsh was doing in expressing her point of view, and he
seconded everything Councilman Kott said in that regard. The reason he voted
against the continuance was because the Council previously expressed itself on
the issue, and there was no reason to drag it out another week in order to rehear
the same statements. He maintained that the statements were clear on both
sides and thereupon offered a resolution opposing the nomination of certain
buildings on the National Register of Historic Places.
Councilman Roth stated that he was going to oppose the resolutions since the
Executive Director had stated that it would not make any difference, time wise,
if not adpoted today. The issue had reached a point of controversy to where
action should be taken by a full council.
Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney what legal impact there would be
if the resolution received a split vote?
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that a two to two vote would require it being
held over to the next meeting when there would be a full Council in order to
break the tie.
78-1681
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
City Attorney Hopkins noted again that due to the tie vote, the Resolution must
be taken up at the next full Council meeting.
175: FEASIBILITY OF PRDPOSED BALSAM HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT: City Manager
William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated December 18, 1978 from
the Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt. The item arose after the agenda was pre-
pared since staff became aware that Southern California Edison (SCE) had filed
for a preliminary permit to study the feasibility of the proposed power project.
The Utilities Director then polled the Public Utilities Board (PUB) on Friday,
December 15 and Monday, December 18, 1978 because they were not going to meet
again until Janaury 4, 1979. It was unanimously agreed that Anaheim would file
an application for a preliminary permit to also study the feasibility of the
project and staff was now seeking ratification of that action because the application
had t? be submitted on December 18, 1978. It was forwared to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and Utilities Director Hoyt was present to request rat-
ification of that authorization.
Councilman Kott asked how the feasibility study appropriate shares had been
arrived at.
Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, answered they had not been determined. His
recommendation was that they file a competing application for the right to make
the preliminary study. Ail the permit allowed was that if a project ever
resulted, it would give the right to build the plant ahead of anyone else who
filed for it. As a public agency, the City's Washington lawyers informed him
that Anaheim would probably be awarded the permit to study the feasibility and
at that point, one to one and one-half years, the City would either get the permit
or not. If it was required, then the City would be faced with significant
expenditures to do the study and determine who should participate in the study.
If SCE was granted the study., he believed Anaheim's chances of being a partic-
ipant in the project were quite slim. The money to be spent presently would
be a few hours work performed by the lawyers. In the future, he would come
back to the Council before taking any further action. It was first necessary
to get the permit and if awarded, he would come back to the Council to ask what
they wished to do in the matter, as well as that of Riverside, because they
anticipated filing a joint application. The present action was merely to file
an application for a permit to engage in a feasibility study.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-808 for adoption as recommended by
the Public Utilities Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-808: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO FILE WITH THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) A JOINT APPLICATION FOR ANAHEIM AND THE CITY
OF RIVERSIDE FOR A PRELIMANARY PERMIT TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PRO-
POSED BALSAM MEADOW HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT. (PROJECT NO. 2868)
78-1682
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-808 duly passed and adopted.
174: ALTERNATIVES TO SCAG: Mr. Donald Hudson, Mayor of Cypress, first stated
that he was not speaking as the Mayor of Cypress or representing the City, but
was presenting himself as a Council Member speaking on the subject of SCAG as
it related to alternatives to SCAG. The City had chosen to withdraw and his
position was with the League of Cities and other council people in the County,
that of favoring withdrawal from SCAG. Before commencing, he asked if the
Council wanted him to speak on alternative~ or his view of SCAG.
Councilman Roth first stated that they were pleased to have Mayor Hudson at
the meeting. He then explained that he had requested that the Council take
action on the matter and he personally wanted to have Mr. Hudson voice his
opinions relative to SCAG and also why his City removed itself from the organ-
ization. It was interesting to note that of twenty-six cities in Orange County,
disenchantment with SCAG was such that only fifteen cities remained as members.
He wanted to know why Mr. Hudson was leading the charge in recommending the
withdrawal and what alternative there might be. The constant threat that prevailed
was if the City withdrew from SCAG, it would not receive any Federal Grants or,
for example, an airport would be built close by. He maintained that kind of
harassment and "blackmail" should be dealt with; Councilman Kott also asked for
a brief historical background on SCAG.
Mr. Hudson then referred to detailed letter dated December 5, 1978 from Mr. Bob
Haskell, Executive Director, Orange County League of California Cities, with
attachments which had been submitted to the Council. Before briefing the
Council on that document, he prefaced his presentation by emphasizing that if
a city removed itself from SCAG, it would not remove the collective or indivi-
dual responsibility to read their documentation and continue to file all ob-
jections to them. They would be involved whether members or non-members, and if
it was anyone's hope that in withdrawing from SCAG, it was going to remove that
work, that presumption was an error because the city would have to work equally
as.hard in either case.
Mr. Hudson then gave a brief historical background leading to the formation of
SCAG in the local region. In 1965 there was a whole series of actions by the
Federal Government to assist cities in dealing with a host of activities at
the State level. The 1965 version of the Federal Government as delivered to
the State and Local level was no longer a layer cake division of authority and
responsibility, but instead a marble cake. It was the incapacity to separate
what one entity funded and where the purse strings were going, that caused the
Federal Government to establish the A95 Review process. He did not believe
that the residents in his community had any conception that they were dealing
with a "marble cake" government. With the development of the Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act in 1968, a requirement of the Federal level for a metropolitan
Clearing House was established, that being SCAG. As well, the General Revenue
Sharing bills passed in 1972 were also held together under SCAG. He referred
78-1683
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
to this now, as he had done in the past, as hidden government. A more factual
and accurate terminology was a defacto government which had removed a significant
portion of local control. He then referred to page two of the December 5, 1978
report, Items One through ~Eight, listing SCAG responsibilities, upon which he
elaborated, as well as an attachment page, Number Eleven, taken from the EIS
prepared by SCAG. This section entitled Regional Economy pointed out the very
large economic base of approximately 6.6% of the GNP coming out of the Six-County
Southern California Region, equalling the twelve largest nations in the world
over which the government had power.
Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chamber (2:40 P.M.)
At the conclusion of his presentation Mayor Hudson referred back to the initial
question of why he recommended that his City remove itself from SCAG. His
feeling was that by so doing and making it an issue, that the people who he
represented would become aware of the nature of the governmental change occurring
and the kinds of things coming out of a regional based model.effecting their
lives and the decisions he made as a Council Member. As an individual, he
detested it and did not believe that the intent was to create a separate, dis-
tinct and new' form of government standing between the City and the State or Fed-
eral level. That was his basic premise. He then referred to a summary of an
Executive Committee action of SCAG dated December 7, 1978~denoting the estab-
lishment of an A95 Review process fee. Failure of the cities to supply the
membership fee to SCAG was causing the organization to become insolvent. Ac-
cordingly, they devised a fee of $100 to be charged to every school district,
water board, municipality, etc., that was a non-member. He suggested that
the additional fee was another form of taxation. In 1965, the seed was planted;
from 1965 to now, the tree was pruned, limbs were added, structure was added,
and it was currently leaning on the fence of local government. Enough people
had tried internally to modify and change the situation, but it was still breaking
down the total responsibility of local government. His choice was to cut the
tree down and, if necessary, plant a new seed and start it up the right way.
The other alternative would be going on the premise that the tree was still
reformable and to try internally to prune it. He believed it had too much
strength and momentum, and it was pulling in too many different sources to be
able to dO so.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Hudson's opinion of the Mini-COG~ concept.
Mayor Hudson answered (1) that some of the regional issues were greater than
the area covered by a Mini-COG, such as an Orange County region; however, he
would favor a Mini-COG over SCAG and ideally the boundary should be Orange
County. Their collective staff had been developing over a long period of
time the need to coordinate their own~activities, but SCAG would not allow that
staff to interact. (2) The second factor for consideration was cost; from
looking at a regional area as large as the twelfth largest nation in the
world, the planning and control aspects would involve an expenditure. If a
COG was formed, it was going to cost money.
One of the last questions posed by Councilman Roth related to the fact that
of the cities who had dropped out of SCAG, it appeared they had not been hurt
relative to the loss of grants. (He stated that fifteen of twenty-six cities
had withdrawn from the organization, but later in the meeting Councilwoman
78-1684
-~ ~ ~ in~%dat~d~o~~ ~P~ge~?' o'f~ ~h~~ Maskell report, ~eVen~ cft'~e~ Ha~ w~-~h~r~w~ ~4eir
' membershiP ...... CyPress,. Garden GrOve, Huntington BeaCh, ~Pat~a,~ Los~ A~a~tos,
-':~Man'~Cteme~te ~and~-~.~anton~· Santa .Asa had s'usp~nded paynie~n~,~ :~h~r du~S: and
thre~ c~ittes,vitla Park, Tustin and San Juan Captstram~'.We~e~:nOt m~s of
SCAG~ previously and remained non-me~ars.~) ~- : '. :: .'": : ~::~ '.
Mayor Hudson emphasized that~ if th~ir-Ci~ty was deni~d~gTa~tm~fo~' fa.tlu~:to be
a member of SCAG, there would be a large lawsuit, because the A95 Review was a
straight bureaucratic function and had nothing to dowtth ~mb~s:hip:~-
Councilman ~.tt first thanked Mr. Hudson for taking the time~tOmake the.
preS~n~a~on;~:~,'~h~ ~'uneiI'~'He particUI~tly~.I~ke~he~]fac~t~e.~red with
them:the~though~ Ehat it was not a personal ~tter %ecau~a.o.f~-so~th~ff~that
might~ve happened between him and someone in SCAG.' It was:bas~ t~s~ad on
prin'ciple, ~erein Mayor Hudson felt that the form of gove~ment wasbelng changed.
He then ~xplained that he had been familiar with SCAG for many' years j~t on
their re~d~ ~ He vi~ed SCAG as an 'ult. i~te~ reductiOn of. the effb~tiv~ess and
~wer of Local ~vern~nt,~ereby the rules and. re'gulat%~s by ~whieh~e~e~one
lived ~uld come from the Federal level, all done in the.~a~.°f~.eontt~tling
purse strings., He felt that Mayor Hudson had asse~d the mat~e~ eorr~tly and
served his (Kott) particular philosophy. Ali tanagers in the c~ties'~f ~Southe~
California should encourage their Councils to get out of SCAG because there
would come a day when everyon~ would question What happenedin ~hat ~a ~facto
gover~ent had taken over,. Before SCAG, he ~intained:~the'cou~t~ ~nd,~tate
developed nicely in working a~ng Cities andco~tieS and W%th 'each ~thar
additionallaYer of unelected government ~o subV~rt the cities 'and~eoumties was
not needed.
Councilman ~erholt stated that he knew it had.taken Mayo~.MudSo~.three years
of active partic,ipa.tion in SCAG to get to the Point where he~t~Ught ~ Could
state his philosophy was contrary to that ~.SGAG ~d do it.~th ~nesty.. He
continued that his o~ philosophy Was no~ set', but shar~ M=~.'~HUdson's~ew
that there was a .benefit to have the exchange of informatiOn~ and coordination
regionallY a~ng city governments. He also shared the view that~as~a~dynasty
developed in the staff of'any organization,.it was somet.bing to b~:feared, as
well as the fact that o~nizations with good beginnings sometimes got out of
hand. He ~hen asked how a city could drop out,of an o~ganizagion, and work
inte~ally to change it. . ~
Mayor HudSon.answered that it see~d to him for a Sm~%t:~city suUh~as .Cypress or
ala~rge ciEy .sUch as ~aheim to attempt to bendthe organizagion-~:tnter~lly would
be al~st~ futile because of the nature a~d~s~reng, th~:'o.f the manner, tn~hich
the organization functioned. He did not share the view with those who believed
they could-drop out and Still work inte~ally,, and he elaborated :.upon ~hose
Counc. il~n Ka~ood stated-that there were a ~cOUple of points She waned to
bring'up ~elative to the history of SCAG in ~aheim. First,: she'.waS v~ tired
of being the Scapegoat for doing, the work shewas, elect.ed:'an~appointed to do.
In 1974 whe~ three Councii members we:re elected, t~e"th~n MaYor Th~?:~=~ to
join SCAG because the proposed Chino Hills Airport was of grea~ interest: She
was then appointed or.elected among the Council as the delegate to the General
78-1685
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Assembly and Mayor Seymour at that time was elected alternate. When she was
asked w~ether she would like to serve as Anaheim's representative for the City
at-large on the Executive Committee, she said "no" because she did not have
time. About two months later, Mayor Thom said that Anaheim would be the at-large
City and Councilwoman ~aywood was appointed to serve. She had been carrying'
the burden since that time and if anybody thought that by appointing her and
then constantly putting her up as a whipping-boy was any way to behave, it was
not, and she reiterated she was tired of the situation.
It was important to look at the benefits that had accrued to Anaheim because~of
her being on the Executive Committee. Two items that immediately came to mind,
one was the sound barriers on the 57 Freeway which would be a three million
dollar project. It was through her efforts and being in SCAG and on the Executive
Committee that approval was given for the barriers, with the landscaping to
follow i~ediately after the erection of the barriers. The Haster Street over-
crossing was another example and one that was not in the Caltrans seven-year
work program. However, she was able to get the Executive Committee to include
it. They had also done extremely well in Anaheim relative to housing units
and EDA Grants, continue support on historic preservation. The City would
have had a five million dollar grant for a City Hall, but some external forces
changed that. The City had received multi-millions of dollars because of its
membership in SCAG and representation on the Executive Committee.
Relative to representation from Orange County, the first and second vice-presidents,.~
were from Orange County and the city of Costa Mesa was also represented. She
concluded if the Council wanted to withdraw, it was up to them to do so, but
she was tired of taking the whipping boy position week after week.
Councilman Roth stated that his opposition to SCAG had nothing to do with
Councilwoman Kaywood personally or the City's membership. He felt that Mr.
Hudson's presentation was saying that they were now losing control at the Local
level, and he was not willing as a local elected representative to have someone
mandate actions such as the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which was dis-
cussed on December 5, 1978. He was of the opinion that more cities should be
dropping out of SCAG in order to bring them (SCAG)to their knees and change
the whole complexion of the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood countered that those things being mandated were not coming
from SCAG but from the Federal and State level and before SCAG, there was a
great deal of difficulty in responding to such things. The fact remained, the
organization was there and if the City did not have representation on it, they
would still be sending staff down to monitor and work with it on the reviews
submitted, the difference being the City would have no input or vote.
Mayor Hudson stated that they were moving a long way towards resolving the very
real issues of large cities and those smaller cities who viewed SCAG as their
primary vehicle. He was hopeful they were going to reach those compromises
that would allow them to move forward much stronger than in the past. In
speaking about the Air Quality Management Plan, the City would receive a
notice and subsequently draft a response accepting it or rejecting it. The
response would then determine whether or not Federal constraints would be
placed on the City.
78-1686
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that relative to the AQMP, he encouraged Cypress and
Mr. Hudson as its Mayor to follow the lead of Anaheim and reject the plan.
Relative to SCAG, Councilwoman Kaywood was correct. In 1974 they had two
situations confronting them, (1) the City's neighbors in Yorba Linda were
constantly embattled in debate and deliberations over an international
type jet airport in Chino Hills and (2) with the aspiration that by becoming
part of the game internall~ things could be changed. He thought it was sound
reasoning in 1974 for the City to join SCAG and become active through the par-
ticipation of Councilwoman Kaywood. The concern he had for the Chino Hills
Airport was still high, but on the other hand, he had come to the conclusion
that internally there was little chance to do anything. He believed that
elected officials~had too little time to truly participate and direct the
functions in setting up policies and activities of SCAG. The bottom line being,
he was on the fence relative to whether the City should continue or withdraw.
Relative to the instances of accomplishment cited by Councilwoman Kaywood,
he was not so certain that those objectives could not have been accomplished
without having been a member of SCAG. He was not prepared personally today to
make a decision, but Mayor Hudson's presentation gave much food for thought.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that if the City withdrew and Mayor Hudson
convinced other cities to withdraw~ it would not have the effect of bringing
SCAG to its knees. She felt, having worked on the inside, they were getting much
more local control than they would have without SCAG. She wanted to know
what would happen if it continued exactly the same way with a small number of
member cities.
Mr. Hudson stated the ultimate threat was that sanctions would be vested upon
his constituents and himself, as well as Councilwoman Kaywood and her consti-
tuents. If the State or the Federal government unilaterally did something
along those lines, then they should get on with it because he wanted the
people in his City to know who they were fighting. He did not want people
in his City to come to him because of actions of the State and Federal govern-
ment, but he wanted them to know exactly how to address that, by replacing those
legislators and by initiating petitions at that level.
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved that Anaheim remove itself from SCAG
effective January 1, 1979. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would not support the motion
presently, but might do so the next Tuesday. Although Mr. Hudson's was a good
presentation, he did not want to make t~e decision of that magnitude in the
excitement of the presentation, but would vote on it in one week.
Councilman Overholt stated he would oppose the motion for the same reason but
whether he would be prepared to vote next week or not, would be questionable.
With due respect to the speaker, he had not been convinced that dropping out of
SCAG was going to solve problems.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in the area of housing with which they were
supposed to be so concerned, because of being in SCAG, the City had received many
more units than they would have, and would continue to do so.
The Mayor stated there were other cities not members of SCAG also receiving
housing units; Councilwoman Kaywood stated not as many as Anaheim.
78-1687
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated that Mayor Hudson had confirmed twice or three times that
it would have no effect on grants as to whether or not they were a member or non-
member of SCAG and that was what he wanted confirmed.
Councilman Kott stated that this was a good opportunity for them to display their
fiscal conservatism and concern for the people of the country. He felt it was
a very worthwhile situation, and it would not make any difference whether or not
they were members of SCAG in terms of acquiring Federal grants.
Mayor Seymour noted that it was obvious that Councilman Roth's motion would be
defeated today and asked if he would be interested or agreeable to carrying the
motion over one week.
Councilmen Roth and Kott were agreeable.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Council would be interested in having someone
from SCAG speak to them, rather than just getting one side of the story. Council-
man Roth stated he was not interested in so doing.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour then offered a substitute motion that a vote be
taken on the matter in one week. Councilman Kott seconded the motion for the
purpose of discussion.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would vote against the motion for the reason
stated previously. He was trying to gather background information to make an
intelligent decision. He thereupon suggested a thirty-day continuance and he
would make it his business to become better educated on the subject and would cast
a vote in one month.
Councilman Roth was of the opinion that the continuance would do no harm. Council-
man Seymour thereupon amended his motion to thirty days. Councilman Kott was
agreeable to the amendment in his second. A vote was then taken on the substitute
motion. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
148/173: PRESENTATION - SCAG IN RELATION TO CHINO HILLS AIRPORT: Mayor Irwin
Fried of Yorba Linda stated that he was authorized by his Council to approach the
Anaheim City Council because they shared a common concern, that being the instal-
lation of an international jet airport on the order of LA~X in the Chino Hills. He
emphasized that the quality of the lives of the Council's constituents, as well as
his own, would be equally destroyed by such action. He then referred to the site
ranking sheet already submitted to the Council liSting thirteen possible sites
now being considered by SCAG through their Aviation Work Program Committee. He
explained that the Committee was composed of elected representatives, such as
Anaheim's Councilwoman Kaywood. His main purpose in approaching the Council was
to ask for their support by resolution, and to forward that Resolution to the
Aviation Work Program Committee of SCAG asking, urging and demanding that con-
sideration of the Chino Hills Airport site ranked ninth be removed completely
from their consideration. He intended to make the same presentation before every
city in North Orange County and stated that he wanted to remove himself completely
from what the Council may or may not do thirty days hence relative to SCAG.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-809 for adoption asking the Aviation
Work Program Committee of SCAG to remove from consideration the potential location
of an airport in Chino Hills. Refer to Resolution Book.
78-1688
City Hall~ A~.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-809: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REAFFIRMING ITS OPPOSITION TO AN AIRPORT IN THE CHINO HILLS AREA AND URGING THE
AVIATION WORK PROGRAM COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTHERN' CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERN-
MENTS TO REMOVE CHINO HILLS FROM CONSIDERATION AS AN AIRPORT SITE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth, and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-809 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:50 P.M.)
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Day" - December 22, 1978
The proclamation was accepted by Mrs. Serene Doudna.
174: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FIFTH YEAR
PROGRAM: CITY OF ANAHEIM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, to receive citizen
input and approve a preliminary budget for the Community Development Block Grant
Fifth Year Program. (continued from November 21, 1978)
Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, stated that on November
21, 1978, he brought before the Council a proposed budget listing expenditures
relative to the Fifth Year Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG).
The program essentially laid forth a breakdown of the proposed expenditures for
the forthcoming year within the entitlement amount for the City of Anaheim of
$2,000,004. On November21st, the matter was discussed and the Council adopted
the proposed budget as recommended by the Community Services Board (CSB) for
purposes of preparation of application data. He pointed out that the numbers
presented to the Council at that time and those before them today were the same,
but because they were working with a different form in some instances, the exact
numbers might not be the same, but they would be within the amounts approved.
The housing allocation was 41% of the total budget, $800,000; public improvements,
33%, $665,000; neighborhood enhancement, 12%, $250,000 with the remaining 9%,
citizen participation; 1%, economic development; and 4%, contingencies.
The purpose of the meeting today was to hear further comments from the public and
resident8 of the City relative to the Program and at the conclusion, for the
Council to authorize by motion the City Manager to submit the application for
A95 Review. It was anticipated the process would take 45 days,at which time
he would be back before the Council for further action on the program.
78-1689
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~. 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked in the numbers presented, what was the reduction in alley
repair.
Mr. Priest answered the recommendations before the Council in November showed
a reduction of approximately $135,000, or 40% of the'total amount a~!ocated
down to 33%.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked relative to housing, how many housing units would
the difference make.
Mr. Priest answered it would be difficult to say depending on the kind of program
in which they were involved. If relatively minor rehabilitation program or a
cleanup-paintup-fixup type was involved, a sizeable number of units would be
included. On the other hand, the purchasing of dilapidated houses and recycling
the land would cut down on the number of units that could be dealt with.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the CDBG Fifth Year
Program.
Mr. Joe Coe, Director of the Orange County Renters Association, 2739 W. Broadway,
stated he was speaking both as a concerned citizen of Anaheim and spokesperson
for the Renters Association. The renters in the City, as well as the County
and State, were being oppressed with ever-rising housing costs. He was in favor
of Block Grant Funds being allocated for housing as recommended by the Community
Services Board. He maintained that to cut housing appropriations of 34% would
be turning their back on one of the most serious problems facing the City and
State. Also, in reviewing the community input, they did not feel that tenants
caused an area to decline as indicated. If the quality of housing and the value
of housing was deteriorating in a given area, it was not the fault of the tenant,
but of the landlord, and a tax structure which allowed them to make a profit off
of slums. Renters were 47% of the community. He urged that the Council not cut
housing down but if anything raise it to 80%.
Mr. Rito Madrid, business address at 808 N. Anaheim Boulevard, resident of Anaheim,
stated he wanted to bring to the Council's attention the need for housing in
relation to the small businessman. They were running out of people to hire in
~the semi-skilled profession. He had just lost three employees simply from the
standpoint they could not find proper housing. The City was losing a tremendous
amount of people who were moving out of the City to lower cost housing in nearby
areas, such as Corona, Chino, etc. He was speaking of those people making under
$12,000 a year, of which approximately 51% in Orange County worked for small
businesses. Many businesses had considered moving out of the area if they could
not find people for their work force to an area where they could acquire a
better working force. He had spoken with people from Delco Remy who were facing
the same dilemma. They could not get people to live in the area because they
could not afford to live in the City. Generally people in the area were con-
cerned with alleys. In the area where his business was located, he stated an
instant ghetto was developing and five and six families were living in one house. --
It was a community of 5,000 set up to handle 2,000 people, with resultant social
problems and where absentee owners were charging $500 to $600 a month rent.
Councilman Roth asked if Mr. Madrid was suggesting that the $135,000 be removed
from the alleys and given to the people who owned those properties so that they
could fix them up.
78-1690
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Madrid answered that he felt alleys needed to be fixed as well, but pro-
portionately, he maintained that more was needed for housing than for alleys.
Councilman Roth stated that 41% of the budget was allocated for housing and
33% to alleys. The City had a long range plan for alley repair, and it was
his opinion that alleys created slums.
Mr. Madrid stated he was recommending that as much as possible be spent on
housing but that in overall need in Anaheim was to have proper alleys. If
businessmen knew what was going on relative to the program, they would have~
given their input relative to housing needs and the problems with which they
were faced.
There being no further persons from the public who wished to speak on the
Community Development Block Grant Program, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Fifth Year CDBG application be
presented for A95 Review by the State of California and SCAG, as recommended by
the Community Services Board. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Priest if other sources
were available for alleys and for housing.
Mr. Priest answered that in terms of other sources for housing, these are availa-
ble. Section 8 housing was a Federally funded direct payment for housing
which did not directly relate to the Block Grant Program. The Block Grant tied
in with State financing or State backed financing. Section 8 dealt with rental
units and existing housing which must be safe, decent and sanitary at the outset.
The State Housing and Block Grant funding dealt with some substandard problems
which might only be yard work, repainting, replumbing, the essence being that of
upgrading. Section 8 was something already established. He personally
endorsed the program because it was simply providing housing and a rental sub-
sidy to a family who could not afford to rent, and it escaped totally from the
ghetto idea of conventional public housing projects of earlier years. California
provided financing for not only rehabilitation but also for refinancing.
After additional questions by Councilwoman Kaywood which were clarified by Mr.
Priest, Mayor Seymour stated the reason he offered the motion was due to the fact
that the changing needs of the City and neighborhoods affected must be taken into
consideration. As expressed the last time the Council philosophically did not
believe in rent control but on the other hand they wanted to do something positive
to improve the quality and quantity of the City's rental housing stock. The
proposed action would show where the~Council's spirit was relative to that
need and the reason he favored the recommendation of the Community Services
Board.
Councilwoman Kaywood again asked if there were other sources for financing alley
reconstruction.
Mr. Priest answered "yes," but in speaking for Mr. Piersall in his absence, they
were both faced with the same problem. They did not have enough money to do the
job that needed to be done in both cases no matter how the program was split.
They had grave concern relative to the problem Mr. Madrid expressed, housing the
78-1691
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1778, 1:30 P.M.
blue collar worker. Unless they were very careful, there would be no housing
for semi-skilled workers, just as with the City of Irvine.
Councilwoman Kmywood noted that she had visited a manufacturer of mobile homes
to inquire about modular housing to see if it was cheaper. She also expressed
that her concern relative to citizen input was that again alley repair was
number one priority, and she wanted to know if that had changed.
Mr. Priest stated, going back to the November 21st meeting, they were dealing
with a situation where there was some input from neighborhood associations. As
well, part of the function of the Community Services Board was to be alert to
what they heard from the community and today the Council was hearing input rel-
ative to the effect that housing was a major need.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1898 AND EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Howard and Jean Garber, Harold S. and Betty C. Cochran to
permit an outdoor construction storage yard on CL zoned property located at
2325 Sequoia Avenue, with code waivers of:
a) maximum fence height
b) minimum landscaping
c) required site screening
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-251, declared the
subject property exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1898, in part, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Sequoia and La Palma Avenues shall
be installed prior to the final building and zoning inspections unless other-
wise approved by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with
standard specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utili-
ties; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash,
in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with
the City to guarantee that the above improvements will be installed prior to
occupancy.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting ter-
mination of Conditional Use Permit No. 689.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1;
provided, however, that:
a. a minimum 3-foot wide landscaped planter shall be installed and
maintained adjacent to Sequoia Avenue;
b. a 6-foot high block wall shall be constructed behind said 3-foot
landscaped area, and;
c. a visually effective landscape screen consisting of Italian Cypress
and/or oleanders (or some other appropriate plants approved by the
Planning Department) shall be provided along the north property line
adjacent to La Palma Avenue.
78-1692
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19; 1978; 1:30 P.M.
4. That no combustible materials shall be stored on site.
5. That all employee parking shall be on site at all times.
6. That all of the aforementioned Condition Nos. 1 through 5 shall be
compiled with within a period of ninety (90) days from the date hereof or such
further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
Ms. Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses, and outlined
the findings given in the staff report, which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Comission.
Councilman Roth stated that they received a letter from some people objecting
because they wanted a block wall fence. It was his understanding that a 3-foot
landscape barrier would be installed and then a 6-foot block wall fence and thus,
that would allay the fears of the neighbors.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Dr. Howard Garber, 523 Peralta Hills Drive, stated that he was the owner of
the subject parcel of land and had been for fifteen years. It had served a
variety of uses over the years and he had a Conditional Use'Permit on the land
in the past for a small private school. The current tenant had been located on
the property for almost 2 years and indicated to him that prior to his submission
for a CUP, there had been no complaints registered with him regarding his use of
the land which contained a storage yard and building. It was only since the
application was submitted that complaints were received which were registered
at the Planning Commission meeting. He continued that the parcel was a unique
piece of land, triangular in shape and could not be used for residential purposes,
and the present use was excellent for the purpose it was serving for the contractor
as a storage yard. The contractor was not only in business At the subject property,
but also was a resident of the area, living only two blocks away. He was now
negotiating to purchase that property. The opposition, Mrs. Bertha Payan, had
contacted him as indicated in his letter to the Council, stating that she too was
interested in purchasing the property.
He continued that at the Planning Commission hearing they assured the Commission
that they would abide by their decision and they were prepared to do so. Their
primary concern at the time was that a barrier be constructed where redwood slats
would be put into the existing chain link fence. Some of the Commissioners were
concerned that it would not be opaque enough, but that it would be possible to see
through the slats. If possible, at this time he suggested that a good appearing
redwood fence with a planter in front of it be constructed, rather than a concrete
block fence, which would serve the same purpose if the Council decided that the use
of the property would be appropriate, as did the Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Bertha Payan, 4628 Prospect Avenue, Yorba Linda, stated that she owned the
adjoining property directly to the west containing four commercial units, which
had been rented out for approximately fifteen years, the time she had owned the
property. She believed the a CUP for an outdoor construction yard should not be
granted and objected to the use for the following reasons: It would be degrading
78-1693
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
to her improved commercial property and would lessen its value. It would be
degrading to the residential area to the south and lessen its value. She had
invested thousands of dollars in a building and complied with all City zoning
and building requirements and now granting the requested CUP would degrade her
property by permitting a lesser zoning next door. One of her tenants recently
invested thousands of dollars for a dental office in one of her units, and he was
very unhappy with the proposed variance and wrote a letter to the Planning
Commission stating his position. Dr. Garber had been able to rent his property
for over fifteen years as Commercial property and a change was not needed now.
In the fifteen years he had been there he had not made any expenditures towards
improving his property. She suggested that the Cochrans, the present tenants
of the property, seek property that would lend itself to their use, such as Mi.
Since the Cochrans had been tenants, they had created an unsightly place with
junk stored haphazardly everywhere. When driving east on La Palma Avenue, going
over the freeway, it was possible to look down into the yard and see all the
unsightly equipment. There was only one way to prevent the eyesore and that was
by denying the variance, as a 6-foot fence would not hide the unsightliness when
driving on La Palma because the street ran above the subject property. The cit-
izens surrounding the property objected at the Planning Commission meeting. On
occasion the police had to be called to quelldrunkenness and disorderliness on
the part of Mr. Cochran's employees which was not good for the residential area.
The Cochrans were using her sidewalk as a driveway since there were no driveway
approaches on the property, but merely rolled curbs, as no approaches had ever
been installed on the subject property. They were actually driving between the
telephone post on the sidewalk curb and on the sidewalk which she built to City
requirements, and they had also run into her building. The subject lot, which
was approximately one-third of an acre, was entireiy too small and unsuitable
for a contracting yard. They were parking dump trucks, storing gasoline in
overhead tanks and making the area a hazardous and dangerous situation for
children living in the homes directly across the street. She felt that the
present zoning was right and proper for the property. As her units were 100%
occupied and had been for a number of years, she maintained that Dr. Garber
should rent his building as commercial property, and he should continue to do
so. The long lot lent itself better to a commercial area because it provided
for parking, but not for a storage area. She implored the Council to deny the
Conditional Use Permit.
Mrs. Karen Setterlee, 1015 N. Alamo, directly across the street, stated they
purchased their property in April and the present situation just occurred recently.
When they moved in, the only thing on the subject property was one dump truck
and a mixer of some type. Since then, the place had become, not a storage yard,
but a junk yard. She did not want to raise her child beside a junkyard. They
put good money into their home and the proposed use should not be allowed to
turn their neighborhood into such an unsightly mess. She did not believe that
people would mind if a block wall were installed, not just redwood slats, since
it was possible to see through those slats and they could be easily vandalized.
A block wall should be upheld as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Roth asked if she would be supportive only if a 6-foot block wall
fence was installed and not a redwood fence.
78-1694
City HalL, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Setterlee answered that was correct.
Mrs. Jean Vormelker, 1006 Alamo, speaking for herself and on behalf of several
of her neighbors, stated they were unanimously opposed to the junk, as it was
very unsightly. Alamo was a one block long street and Sequoia was the only way
in and out comfortably over to La Palma Avenue. Everybody utilized that route
and had to view the unsightly mess.
Mayor Seymour asked if she was of the same opinion as Karen Setterlee, if a
6-foot block wall fence were constructed, would she not be opposed to the project.
Mrs. Vormelker stated that she would prefer not to have the yard there at all,
but a block wall would be much better than what was there at present. They pur-
chased their home three years prior and at that time there was no landscaping.
Since then, landscaping had been added so it had been improved in that regard.
However, she could see the yard from her house, as well as the neighbors up the
street. She emphasized that it was just not a residential area any longer.
Mr. Tom Cochran, renter of the property, 2433 Glencrest, Anaheim resident for
fourteen years, stated he had been located at the subject property for more than
one and one-half years. What was agreed upon the last time was acceptable to them
relative to the installation of a block wall. He was going to provide that wall
until the appeal was filed to the variance. Thus, they did not proceed not
knowing what the result of the request would be. Relative to Mrs. Payan's
concerns, he did not believe that anything could be done to the property to
shield it from view from La Palma Avenue since La Palmm crossed over the freeway
and it was possible to look down into the property no matter what would be located
on it. Relative to the offices Mrs. Payan talked about just recently rented, her
son was the dentist involved, and he knew they were using the property as a
storage yard when he moved in.
Councilman Roth questioned the fact that neighbors remarked that the area looked
like a Junk yard and he wanted to know if it was going to be in a particular order
or fashion in which storage would take place after the block wall was installed.
Mr. Cochran stated that as soon as the block wall was constructed, things would
be completely changed. They were up for a lease renewal and did not know if
they were going to stay or what they might do, so they had not done anything.
If he did get the variance, then it would be more orderly and if he purchased
the property it would be completely upgraded.
Councilman Roth asked what type of fencing would be installed on the western
side of the property on Moraga Street.
Mr. Cochran explained that there was nothing to the west other than Mrs. Payan's
building; Ms Santalahti confirmed for Councilman Roth that access to the subject
property was off of Sequoia.
Councilman Roth stated that the fence should be extended to the western portion
of the property to prevent any intrusion of the view from the commercial offices
along Moraga.
78-1695
City Hall,..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Cochran stated that the configuration of the property was such that Mrs.
Payan's building completely covered their property from Moraga other than the
area where the sidewalk was located.
Councilman Kott then questioned Mr. Cochran concerning driveways and the claim
the Mrs. Payan's building had been run into.
Mr. Cochran conceded in all hosesty that some of his men had been driving over
the sidewalk because it was easier to drive through than to try to back out onto
Sequoia. Once they installed the block wall, they were going to be completely
resituated and they would have a parking area. There was a driveway there at
present although it was not concrete, but just like the other rolled curb drive-
ways in the neighborhood. He also stated that he did not object to installing
a driveway.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how Mr. Cochran would be able to control his employees
so that no drunken brawls would again take place, and she also questioned if
he was on the premises at all times for purposes of supervision.
Mr. Cochran stated that the situation relative to drunkenness had been brou'ght to
his attention before. The only time that the police had been to the property was
when their office was broken into and one of his employee's cars was hit. He
was On the premises from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and they were not open beyond
6:00 p.m. He also clarified that the incident referred to, if it occurred,
did so without his knowledge.
Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Cochran presently stored gasoline on the site
in overhead tanks.
Mr. Cochran answered "no" and further explained that they had two tanks on
site, one of which was completely empty and the other one-tenth full of diesel
fuel. It was not his intention to continue to store those materials on the
property, nor any fuel at all.
Dr. Garber interjected and stated that the situation of the property was such
that the building referred to on the corner, Mrs. Payan's property, was facing
due west. They were on the back of the property and thus there was no view at
all from the building. There was a blank wall with no windows and no purpose
would be served by putting a block wall in that particular location. Dr. Garber
then asked if the Council ruled favorably on the application, if a time extension
could be considered, the same period of time, but starting on this date rather
than having used up valuable time for subsequent proceeding.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was intending to sell the property at present.
Dr. Garber answered "yes" and explained that Mr. Cochran was presently negotia-
ting with him, and Mrs. Payan was also interested in purchasing the property.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if there would be any view for the residents of
the area as far as the front of the building was concerned.
78-1696
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decem~.er 19~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Santalahti stated the only spot from which there could be a view would
involve whatever the distance from Mrs. Payan's sidewalk was to her building.
She suggested that perhaps the block wall should turn the corner so that there
would be no visibility between the block wall and the building.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is,
therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-810 for adoption granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1898, subject to City Planning Commission recommendations and
also requiring no fuel on site; a 6-foot block wall; a driveway; and the block
wall to turn the corner on the westerly exposure. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-810: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1898.
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-810 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 76-22A: In accordance with application
filed by Darle Hale of Hale Construction Company and Roy Mitsuuchi, doing
business as Harbor Farms, public hearing was held on proposed abandoment of
a portion of a dedicated roadway, known as Coronado Street between Van Buren
Street and La Palma Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-760 duly published
in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated October 17, 1978 and a recommendation by
the Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandcmment
subject to the following two reservations: reserving unto the City of Anaheim
a public utility easement together with an easement for sanitary sewer line,
storm drain and water line purposes over, under and across all of the roadway area
proposed for abandonment to accommodate existing facilities; reserving unto the
Pacific Telephone Company an easement to accommodate their existing facilities as
defined in the legal description over, under and across the northerly 5 feet of
the area of said roadway.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1697
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19.~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-811 for adoption approving
Abandonment No. 76-22A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-811: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE~VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF CORONADO STREET. (76-22A)
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-811 duly passed and adopted.
180: INVESTIGATION OF INSURANCE MATTERS: City Attorney Hopkins stated that
several weeks prior, the City Council directed his office to conduct an
investigation on insurance matters. The first investigation had been com-
pleted involving the short rate cancellation table and he was awaiting a
confirmation letter from the Chief Counsel of the California Insurance Department
in order, to complete that report. Relative to the second item, due to a
number of litigation items and arbitration cases, he had not been able to find
an attorney to conduct that investigation and, therefore, was requesting that the
Council, by motion, authorize the City Attorney to prepare an employment agreement
with the R.J. Frasco Agency to provide professional insurance investigation
services, a professional organization expert in the insurance field. He was
requesting their assistance in doing the leg work involved relative to the time
consuming trips to various insurance carriers and the like and his office would
prepare the final report. The rate quoted was $20 per hour depending on the usage
that would be required, a guesstimate being somewhere between 80 and 100 hours,
although that could be high.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved to authorize the City Attorney to prepare an
employment agreement with R.J. Frasco Agency to provide insurance investigation
services. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
121: TIMKEN ROAD SEWER LINE: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Timken Road
sewer line that was continually overflowing and the residents were unable to
take showers and use most of their plumbing, she pointed out that a reluctant
neighbor was holding up the easement to allow construction of the project.
Mrs. Day, an adjacent resident, stated that she would give an easement if Mr.
McNames would do so. He (McNames) was concerned because of the equestrian
trail that was to go through his property. She thereupon moved to instruct the
City Attorney to take necessary action for condemnation of property to expedite
construction on the Timken Road sewer line with the view that otherwise it was
a violation of the health, safety and welfare of the residents in that area.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TREES AT THE SITE OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD AT FAIRMONT BLVD.: Mayor
Seymour stated that relative to the proposed shopping center at Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard and the issue of trees at that site which
had gone before the Council several weeks prior, it was his understanding that
half of the trees had been torn down.
78-1698
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Santalahti explained that a representative from the Planning Department had
visited the site and the trees the Council required to remain were not all located
in one spot, and it appeared that the tree removal plan had been followed in
accordance with Council approval. Ten trees were still found to be intact.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the pepper trees were still in place; Councilman
Roth stated that they were at 8:45 that morning when he drove by the area.
Mayor Seymour stated he would, therefore, withdraw his request but asked Ms.
Santalahti to provide the Council with a short written report on the matter.
Councilman Roth also stated that while they were on the subject, someone was
suppose to restore the old historical adobe house on the site which at present
was an eyesore. He suggested that they ascertain when the County was going to
do something about the site as it was being vandalized on a daily basis. He
emphasized if the County wanted to preserve it, that a fence or some other type
of barricade be installed to prevent further destruction.
108: BINGO ORDINANCE: Councilman Kott stated that he had received a request
from Mr. Mike Schultz to address the Council on the subject of Bingo.
Mayor Seymour stated he had spoken to Mr. Schultz during recess and he suggested
his concern could best be answered by an action of the Council. They had dis-
cussed the Ordinance some time back and gave a 90-day trial period, at the end
of which there was to be a committee and subsequently a report submitted, which
report was due today.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the Council receive a report
and any other recommendations from the staff relative to the'Bingo Ordinance
which was instituted on a trial basis for 90 days and that the report be sub-
mitted in two weeks. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Mike Schultz requested to speak and stated that he
attended all the meetings the Council held on Bingo. At the time of the exten-
sion, an attorney spoke for an organization that held Bingo in Anaheim, Larry
Anderson. To his recollection, no committee was appointed by either the
Council or the Bingo operators. He wanted to know who the City Council intended
to contact.
The Mayor answered that staff would be contacted, meaning the Police Department,
City Attorney's Office and anybody else in the City who had been involved in the
Bingo Ordinance. As well, a letter would be sent to all Bingo operators remind-
ing them of the 90-day trial period and the fact that they were going to get
together on their own relative to the issue, and the Council wanted a report in
two weeks. That was the intent of his motion.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Schultz where he conducted Bingo in the City; Mr.
Schultz answered that he did not do so, but was a citizen of Anaheim who favored
putting restraints on operators. He was not opposed to Bingo but wanted the
games run for the purpose they were intended. He further stated that the majority
of citizens of California wanted Bingo; however, it was put on the ballot in a
vague manner where people did not even know what type of Bingo they were voting
for. When they voted for Bingo, they left it wide open for the cities to clean-up
their own problems created by the State.
78-1699
City Hall, ARah.eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December. 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that they would take all the testimony Mr. Schultz wanted
to give two weeks hence. ~.
150: DISTURBANCE AT CULTURAL ARTS CENTER, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1978: Councilman
Kott referred to letter' received from Mr. John Bradley regarding the Cultural
Arts Center and he asked if Mr. Bradley was present to speak on the matter;
there was no response.
Mayor Seymour acknowledged Marguerite Lee and Bernie Smith who were present to
speak on the subject, and he also acknowledged the report the Council had
received from the Center.
Councilman Kott referred to the last paragraph on page one of the report, "Steps
have been taken to insure that such undesirable activities will not happen again."
He wanted to know what those steps were.
Mr. Bernie Smith, Newport Beach, first stated that he had a long history with
Anaheim and he was still interested in it. When a mistake was made, and they
made one, it was possible to learn from it. He noted that for every person
requesting and finally succeeding in renting their facilities at the Cultural
Arts Center, they turned down at least one additional person, for an approximate
40% acceptance rate. As an example, since the incident took place on December 8,
they had to reject an individual who misrepresented himself. They did so by
checking into the corporate status he reported to them. It was a very difficult
thing to tell from appearances how truthful a person was. They and the neighbor-
hood were victimized and a letter had been submitted to the newspapers as an
apology to that neighborhood and the citizens in the vicinity and such an incident
would not be repeated. Previously, they had not looked into the background of
individuals requesting to rent their facilities and now they were doing so.
Mayor Seymour stated that he was satisfied with the report provided to the
Council. He understood and was willing to continue to support the activities
at the Center.
Councilman Roth stated that the incident was very unfortunate and those responsible
had even sent flyers out to the high schools to increase the crowd. He was
satisfied with the report as well and suggested that it might be wise to util-
ize the application used by the City for a dance permit and like activities.
That concept might be good and beneficial to Mr. Smith's organization.
Mr. Smith stated he would take the suggestion under advisement.
Mrs. Marguerite Lee stated for the past fifty years she had lived in Anaheim
and for the past five years, she had been in on cultural events in the City. She
knew nothing of the booking which was made by the acting Director which
turned out to be a very embarassing situation. It was to have been a social
event and a dance by invitation only. After the group had the promise of
the room at the Center, they simply sold tickets to anybody who came by. The
Acting Director, Steve Natoli, and his young assistants, went to all the neighbors
in the area and picked up any debris they could and went back the next day and
apologized personally.
78-1700
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Lee cohtinued that regarding Mr. Bradley, he complained about the number
of cars parked in the Center lot, he complained recently about the dance classes
and about everything else in relation to the Center. She maintained it was
unfortunate that his home was so close to the Center, but by the same token,
they had to meet their expenses as well.
Councilman Overholt commended Mr. Smith, Mrs. Lee and Mr. Natoli for waiting
almost four hours to explain the situation to the Council and the community.
The Cultural Arts Center was a source of pride to the City and the work they
were doing was a source of pride to all. He hoped this was another expression
of the Council's support for the work they were doing. He commented, however,
he was surprised that the group thought that they could get away with what
they did and if the promoters were available, it might be interesting to have
them compensate the City for damages done.
Mr. Smith added that one of the complaints from Mr. Bradley involved a woman
who had a heart attack. They moved her outside of the building so that the
ambulance could get to her.
Councilman Kott felt they were getting off on a tangent and did not believe the
integrity of the Center was threatened or even brought up. The City received a
complaint, the taxpayer had a right to complain, and he was responding to that
complaint.
166: ILLEGAL SIGNS ON UTILITY POLES: Councilman Kott referred to the subject
and asked the City Attorney how that problem could be put to rest and how the
City could enforce an ordinance pertaining to the issue. He felt that the
report from staff did not address the issue.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the report was prepared by the Utilities Department
staff. He further explained that from time to time his office had prepared
ordinances concerning the posting of political material and other material on
utility poles and usually they had not been adopted. A recent case in Redwood
City indicated that enforcement of such ordinances was very questionable. The
Courts felt that such a prohibition deprived persons of their First Amendment
rights to publish certain information and hz doubted if it could be enforced,
although they could try. He could prepare another ordinance and place provisions
in it making it difficult for people to post such signs. He reiterated however
that the Courts did not look favorably upon such ordinances. Thus, it was
a question'of trying the ordinance and waiting to see what the Courts would do
with it. He did not suggest removing the law because there was a certain
deterrent effect in having it. The people in the Utilities Department had
to climb the poles, and nails and other items used to post the signs were a
safety hazard to them. Business advertising was prohibited by another Section
of the Code, but it was political advertising where they seemed to run into
opposition from the Courts. The Police Chief indicated he would make every
effort to enforce the existing ordinance, but that was difficult because the
posting usually occurred when no one was around.
Councilman Overholt asked if removal of the signs placed on a pole was in
violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Hopkins answered that it was the putting up of the signs that was illegal
and that they would encourage the taking down.
78-1701
City Hal.!~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
After a brief discussion between Councilman Overholt and City Attorney Hopkins,
for purposes of clarification relative to the posting and taking down of such
signs, Councilman Overholt concluded that he agreed with Councilman Kott in
the fact that the ordinance was literally unenforceable.
Councilman Roth noted that political signs, by law, were supposed to have the name
and address of the candidate or the publisher, one of the two responsible for
the sign. In 1976, he had suggested that the Public Works Department take down
the signs and charge the individual for removal and storage.
Mayor Seymour reminded the Council that many hours had been spent on the subject.
He was of the opinion that they should leave the current ordinance on the books
although it was the honest people that were going to abide by it and the dis-
honest people would not do so. He did not believe that the Council could move
ahead any longer on the subject.
105: PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE: Councilman Kott stated that a couple of
weeks prior, he requested through the City Clerk's Office a list showing the
attendance record of Planning Commissioners because he had noticed that atten-
dance was down at meetings approximately 30%. To date, he had not received the
report and he thereupon requested that the City Manager obtain a copy of the
attendance record of the Planning Commission for the past year and submit it to
him.
Mr. Talley stated he would submit the attendance record for all meetings held
in 1978.
173: BUS SHELTER PROGRAM: Councilman Overholt noted that one of the bus
shelter companies was going to address the Council separate from the study that
had been made previously. He presumed that would mean that other companies
could do something extra as well.
Mayor Seymour stated that the reason the company requested of him to appear before
the Council was that they had compiled a rather extensive study at their expense
and wanted to present it to the City for consideration. That was the only purpose.
Councilman Overholt asked if that could be presented to staff for review and
evaluation before it was presented to the Council.
The Mayor stated that he did not think that it would be, but they were just going
to come to the Council.
Ms. Santalahti stated that staff was aware of the situation. In a general sense,
they knew what was going to be discussed.
Councilman Roth stated if the Council was going to hear from the company, Con-
venience and Safety (C&S), or whoever, it was imperative that each of the shelter
companies be advised of the presentation whenever it was set for Council.
The Mayor stated since concern was being expressed, that C&S would merely rather
submit the report to the Council and staff.
78-1702
City Hall~ Aqaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated his concern was to have fairness throughout on the
Bus Shelter Program and not to give what might appear to be an unfair advantage
to those competing.
The Mayor stated it might appear to be that way until it was understood what
they wanted to present. If the Council felt their study presented an unfair
advantage, they should be told to keep it or to present it, but not in public.
He thereupon asked the City Clerk to contact C&S and tell them to submit their
written report to staff with a copy to the Council, but that the Council did not
care to have the presentation made at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be very concerned if they did appear
because it would certainly look like partiality. Even their letter was of
concern to her.
123: SITE STUDY AND EIR FOR A TWO-MILLION GALLON RESERVOIR AT THE LENAIN
FILTRATION PLANT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-812 for
adoption as recommended by the Public Utilities Board in memorandum dated
December 8, 1978 recommending that the Council approve the employment of
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., for engineering services in
connection with a site study and Environmental Impact Report for a two-million
gallon reservoir at the Lenain Filtration Plant. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-812: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
WITH JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT OF BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, answered
questions posed by Councilman Kott for purposes of clarification and also
briefed the Council on the memorandum from the Public Utilities Board.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
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-812 duly passed and adopted.
175: PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 4 AND 5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
AGREEMENT: Recommendation from the Public Utilties Board that the Council
approve the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 and 5 California
Environmental Agreement, and authorize the Utilities Director to sign same;
rescind Resolution No. 78R-274 approving the previous agreement; appoint the
Utilities Director to the Management Committee; and authorizing the Utilities
Director to appoint alternate representatives to the Management Committees or
other established committees.
78-1703
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott asked that the item be separated in order to be able to vote
separately on the agreement and the rescinding of the Resolution.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-813 for adoption approving the
subject Environmental Agreement as recommended in memorandum dated December 11,
1978 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-813: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF LOS
ANGELES, BURBANK, GLENDALE, PASADENA, AND RIVERSIDE IN CONNECTION WITH REQUIRE-
MENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND AUTHORIZING THE UTILITIES
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 and 5).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-813 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-814 for adoption approving the
rescinding of Resolution No. 78R-274. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLOTION NO. 78R-814:' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-274, DATED MAY 2, 1978.
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-814 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour moved to appoint the Utilities Director and authorizing him
to appoint alternate representatives to the Management Committees and other
committees. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted no.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: ANAHEIM ARTS COUNCIL - PUBLICATIONS: Mrs. Marguerite Lee, Vice-President
of the Anaheim Arts Council stated that Vi Wheeler, President, was present but
had to leave the meeting. The Arts Council was requesting that the Council waive
the costs of printing of their publications as explained in letter dated
November 15, 1978.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Council approved
the cost of printing the Anaheim Arts Council publications through May of 1979,
at a cost not to exceed $2500 to be expended from the Council Contingency fund.
MOTION CARRIED.
78-1704
City .Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Council-
man Roth, the folowing actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of November 22, 1978.
b. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of December 4, 1978.
c. 156: Police Department - Monthly report for November 1978.
d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of December 6, 1978.
e. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of November 28, 1978.
f. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of November 16, 1978.
2. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permits were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Application for a Public Dance Permit on behalf of The Sting Restaurant,
945 South Knott Avenue, for dancing Tuesday through Sunday, 8:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M.
(John W. Higgins, applicant)
b. Application for a Public Dance Permit on behalf of La Perla Restaurant,
604 East Lincoln Avenue, for dancing Monday through Sunday, 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M.
(Pedro B. Rodriguez, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
114: CITY OF GARDEN GROVE RESOLUTION NO. 5682-78 - HCD FUNDS: Expressing
concern that HCD Funds allocated to Orange County Cities be re-allocated to the
Orange County Consortium, when they are declined by the original recipient
cities.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the subject Resolution, Items 3 and 4, and
asked for confirmation that at the Mayor-City Managers Consortium Meeting she
attended last month if that was what the group agreed to on Item 4--that it be
permissible to use funds for any eligible project or confined to housing or
housing related items.
City Manager Talley answered that he thought they were but this was a Garden
Grove Resolution. A Resolution was also being prepared in the Community Develop-
ment Department but it would be slightly different.
105: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 1978 MEETING OF GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the subject was a joint meeting of the Council
and the Commission and it should state, "Absent: Councilman Kott."
78-1705
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that they could not correct the Commission's minutes; Council,
woman Kaywood stated a note could be sent to them, and she thereupon continued with
another correction on page 2 of those minutes.
The Mayor interjected and asked the City Attorney if, in fact, the Council could
correct the Commission's minutes even if they were inaccurate.
Mr. Hopkins answered "no," but that they would have to go back to the Commission
for correction at their level since their minutes were involved.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to send the Golf Course Advisory Commission
minutes of November 22, 1978 back to the Commission for correction. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that the matter was one of nit-
picking and he would have no part of it. The minutes were the Commission's
record and their responsibility and the Council should not be correcting their
minutes.
Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that such minutes were a part of the City's
public record and if there was a mistake, it should be corrected. She clarified
for Councilman Overholt that she knew they were wrong because she was in atten-
dance at that meeting.
Councilman Roth suggested if a mistake was noted that the Councilperson send a
memorandum indicating same to the Commission.
Councilman Overholt stated he was withdrawing his second and suggested that Coun-
cilwoman Kaywood bring the matter to the attention of the particular body involved.
105: HACMAC - MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1978: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to
page 6, Item 7 of the subject minutes stating, "The subcommittee will relay a
letter to LAFCO on the feelings and comments of HACMAC on their document via a
recommendation to the Planning Commission on Annexation No. 7." She recalled
there was a huge blow-up about a year prior regarding HACMAC sending their rec-
ommendations to LAFCO without the Council knowing of their action.
Mayor Seymour stated that his interpretation of the statement was that they would
do so via a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Roth stated the only comment he had was the use of first names in
HACMAC's minutes since it made it difficult to identify the people speaking.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, then explained for the Mayor that relative
to the statement made, he had not yet had an opportunity to see the minutes,
but staff did alert him to what they considered a potential problem inasmuch
as the matter was discussed previously. It was the opinion of his key staff
members that even though Council indicated to HACMAC approximately one year before~
that all correspondence was to go out via the City Council, there was a possibil-
ity they were going to do something on their own.
78-1706
City Hall~ Anahe,im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Santalahti stated she was at the meeting on November 21 and they discussed
at some length whether they could write a letter to LAFCO themselves and they
also discussed the Council's concern the last time the situation occurred. It
was discussed at two meetings and the discussion that took place would be
available in the next set of minutes to be submitted.
The Mayor reiterated the way he interpreted the statement was that the Committee
was sending something to the Planning Commissionindicating their opinion rel-
ative to the issue. He wanted to know if that was the correct interpretation.
Ms. Santalahti stated she believed he was correct. At that particular meeting,
that was what they were going to do and they did send a recommendation to the
Planning Commission. Subsequently the item was broached again where they reviewed
the Commission's actions and discussed what they were going to do. It was
decided they would do nothing except go through normal City channels.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that would be her concern as well. Even if they
were to send their recommendation to the Planning Commission, such action would
again bypass the Council. She thought the matter was so clear when it occurred
previously, that the situation would not have occurred again.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-815
through 78R-821, 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.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-815: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (78-11A, setting January 9, 1979, 3:00 P.M., as date and time for
public hearing)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-816: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (78-13A, setting January 9, 1979, 3:00 P.M., as date and time for
public hearing)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-817: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT
AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT LA PALMA AND WOODLAND DR. AND MAGNOLIA AVE.
AND WOODLAND DR., IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-712-16-0811,
(1977-78) AND ACCOUNT NO. 12-794-6325-4030 (1978-79). (Grissom and Johnson, Inc.)
156: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-818: 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: MICROWAVE RELAY COMMUNI-
CATIONS TOWER, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 909, ACCOUNT NO. 01-986-.
6325-0000. (Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc.)
78-1707
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decmmber 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P~M.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-819: A RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: GILBERT STREET
STORM DRAIN, 900' N/O BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-6325-
1090, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened January 18, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-820: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALL ROAD AND DALE AVENUE,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-795-6325-5030, APPROVING THE DESIGNS,
PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF;
AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK
TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF.
(Bids to be opened January 11, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-821: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD
AND VIA BURTON STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-795-6325-5040,
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF;' AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT-
ING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PREPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 11, 1979, 2:00 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-815 through 78R-821, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NOS. 10442 AND 10443:' Developer, Westfield Development;
tracts located north' and south of Canyon Rim Road easterly of Nohl Ranch Road,
and each contain one proposed RM-1200 zoned lot.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed
subdivisions, together with their design and improvement, were found to be con-
sistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Maps,
Tract Nos. 10442 and 10443, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memor-
andums dated December 12, 1978. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1708
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Cali.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. H. Clark McCord, 17802 Skypark Circle, representing WeStfield Development,
stated that he wanted to thank staff for all their hard work in expediting
the matter through the Planning Commission and the City Council.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3951: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3951
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3951: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4 OF
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 4.75 RELATING TO TOWING PROPERTY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3951 duly passed and adopted.
108: ORDINANCE NO. 3952: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3952 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3952: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 3812 NUNC PRO TUNC. (correcting a legal description, Reclassification
No. 73-74-25)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3952 duly passed and adopted.
105: LIBRARY BOARD - UTILIZATION OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE ANAHEIM HILLS
GOLF COURSE FOR A NEW LIBRARY: Councilman Overholt reported on the Library
Board meeting held Monday, December 18, 1978 and the Board's continued interest
in utilizing property adjacent to the Anaheim Hills Golf Course for a new
library. They were also going to submit a proposal to the City Manager
relative to the possibility of proceeding with plans for that library so as to
be able to apply for funding if available. Previously he had indicated
that the Council might be asked to participate in a substantial way. However,
the Board's program which would be coming to the City Manager's office would
suggest participation in a less substantial way. They were trying to keep
the faith with the people in the Hills area by giving them hope that the library
facility would be available as soon as possible.
Councilman Kott asked if they wanted to build the library on the existing
parking lot.
Councilman Overholt answered that was correct, in the area in which the Elk's
Club was interested, and they had met with the Golf Course Commission and Mr.
Liegler relative to the matter.
78-1709
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
105: COMMUNICATION FROM MWD - ELLEN STERN HARRIS APPEARANCE BEFORE PUB:
Councilman Overholt referred to and asked the status of the communication
received from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) relative to the appearance
of Ellen Stern Harris at the Public Utilities Board (PUB) meeting.
Mayor Seymour stated he received a letter wherein the MWD indicated they
were somewhat upset with the position of the City's PUB hearing Ellen Stern
Harris and what she had to say. When he received this letter, he instructed
the City Clerk to, copy the Council, the PUB, the Utilities Director and
the City Manager's office and requested the PUB to respond to the letter through
the Utilities Department.
Later in the meeting, Councilman Kott co~ented that, in his opinion, the letter
did not address the issues. As a Council, they had nothing to do with the matter
and he believed that the PUB had a right to ask anyone to appear before them, just
as the Council.
105: EXTENSION OF TERM ON YOUTH COMMISSION - SUSAN DELESK: Councilwoman Kaywood
reported that on Friday, December 15, 1978 she and the Mayor had a Liason
Committee meeting with the Youth Commission. The term of Susan Delesk, Chair-
man of the Commission, was ending December 31, 1978 and they were going to ask
that she continue through March during the reorganization and transition period
when a new chairman would take over.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to extend the term of Susan Delesk on the
Youth Commission through March of 1979. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
102: DOG "SCOOP" ORDINANCE: Councilman Kott stated that Los Angeles had adopted
a dog "scoop" ordinance in that city. He explained that there had been complaints
in his area relative to the problem, especially from him, and thus he asked that
staff obtain copies of the ordinance from Los Angeles and that the City Attorney
prepare a similar ordinance for Council consideration.
150: TENNIS CONCEPTS REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASES: Councilman Kott referred to
the request from Tennis Concepts for rate increases. He maintained that since
Proposition 13 had gone into effect with resultant curtailment of tax money, and
with the increased cost of running the City, that perhaps the City should be
receiving more money from the program assigned to private enterprise. He was
not certain of the status of the program and asked the City Manager its disposition.
Mr. Talley explained that the agreement with Tennis Concepts did not provide
for increasing their contributions to the City, but it could be changed if both
parties agreed. The agreement did, however, provide for Tennis Concepts to
increase their fees. Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, James Ruth,
advised the Council that they had requested an amount beyond that originally
conveyed to the Council, the reason being: (1) they were not experiencing the
usage they predicted, (2) they were taking a loss on the operation of the~
facility, and (3) their rates were substantially below the rates of other
facilities. It was staff's intention to approve the requested rate unless the
Council advised otherwise.
78-1710
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 197 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated it was his feeling that the taxpayers of the community
were giving that property away and the City was losing money on it. As he
recalled, it was a 20-year contract at approximately $80,000, or $4000, a year.
As well, the City was providing gardening and certain upkeep at the facility.
Mr. Talley confirmed that the upkeep was adjacent to, but not on the premises it-
self. The thinking of the City Council and staff recommendation at the time was
that the City would not have been developing that area in the foreseeable future.
Mayor Seymour stated in defense of the Center, (1) a public service was being
provided and at lower rates than anywhere else other than public courts, (2)
the developer of Tennis Concepts expended approximately one-half million
dollars in capital improvements, whereas the City would have had to use taxpayer
funds if built by the City, and (3) at the end of the 20-year lease, the tax-
payers of the City would recapture all improvements made.
Councilwoman Kaywood also pointed out that the Parks and Recreation Commission
did approve the request for an increase in fees.
139: "SPIRIT OF 13 - GANN INITIATIVE": Mayor Seymour referred to' the "Spirit
of 13 - Gann Initiative" and asked that the Council investigate the matter on
their own and subsequently take a position on it at a Council meeting in a
couple of weeks. He recounted that Proposition 13 placed a limitation on
property taxes, but on the other hand, government at all levels was now creating
user fees and other physical programs in which to recoup whatever taxes and
revenues were lost as a result of Proposition 13. In his opinion, the entire
spirit of Proposition 13 had been waylaid and bureaucracy at all levels would be
doing business as usual. The "Spirit of 13" would finally place the cap on
government spending and not just in the area of property taxes. It spoke to
controlling expenditures on a consumer price index, as well as an increase in
population, and using the base year, the 1978-79 fiscal year. If the Initiative
qualified for the ballot and was passed by the voters of California, all levels
of government in the State would be restricted to increasing their budgets
beyond the level of 1978-79 and all future years other than the fact that they
would be able to rise by whatever increase had taken place in the CPI and/or
expansion of population. He believed it was the answer to controlling government
spending and thus appropriate for the City Council to take a position and
hopefully one of support. He thereupon asked the City Clerk to obtain copies
of the Gann Initiative and distribute those to all Council members. He would
again broach the matter in two weeks and ask the Council to take a position
of support.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how the Initiative would affect the City's utility.
Mayor Seymour answered that utility rates could be set separately as long as
the funds did not go into the General Fund. If the profits of the Utility
Department were placed in the General Fund, it could be controlled.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they should get a complete ruling on the matter
because it might be a totally different situation.
Councilman Overholt asked if they could have an analysis of how the Initiative
would impact Anaheim so that they would know what they were talking about.
78-1711
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked the City Manager if in the next couple of weeks, he could do a
brief analysis of the impact of the "Spirit of 13" on the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Talley indicated it would be very brief since he did not have a copy of
the Initiative, and there were two holidays in the two-week period. Mayor
Seymour thereupon moved the matter up another week into January 9, 1979.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they had to be very cautious because they had
not yet gone through the first year of Proposition 13, and there were new sur-
prises all the time. When the State surplus was gone, they should be sure
where they stood.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would like to see Anaheim be independent of any
State surplus.
Mr. Talley stated that an analysis would be provided with the agenda packet for
the January 9, 1979 meeting.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:15 P.M.)
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL VS. RALPH SNEEGAS: Councilman Seymour moved to
authorize the City Attorney to dismiss Orange County Superior Court Case No.
244742, City of Anaheim, et al vs. Ralph Sneegas. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM ET AL VS. VARGAS ET AL: Councilman Seymour moved to
authorize the employment of Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs to represent the City
of Anaheim and other defendants named in United States District Court (Central
District of California) Case No. CV 78 4551 LTL, Vargas et al vs. City of
Anaheim, et al, and authorizing the City Attorney to execute a letter agreement
with Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. VARGAS: Councilman Seymour moved to receive and file
letters from the City Manager, City Attorney and Chief of Police relating to
Vargas vs. City of Anaheim. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed to 7:30 P.M. to the Multi-
purpose room of the Central Library at 500 W. Broadway Street for a joint
public meeting with the City Planning Commission, Community Redevelopment
Commission and Housing Commission to discuss areas of mutual concern. (6:20 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION: Barnes, Johnson, Bushore and David
PLANNING COMMISSION: Herbst, Tolar and King
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Bay, Oseid, Dinndorf, Valenzuela and Moss
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Morris and Fry
78-1712
City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 19, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
HOUSING COMMISSION: Dvorman, Bayley, Ersek and Gardner
HOUSING COMMISSION: Gasio, Sandoval, and Cummins
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour welcomed those in attendance and called the joint
public meeting with the City Planning Commission, Community Redevelopment
Commission and Housing Commission to order, all Council Members being present.
(7:45 P.M.)
Vice-Chairman Charlene Barnes called the City Planning Commission to order,
all Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner Herbst, Tolar
and King.
Vice-Chairman Stewart Moss called the Redevelopment Commission to order, all
Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner Morris and Fry.
Chairman Jackie Dvorman called the Housing Commission to order, all Commissioners
being present with the exception of Commissioner Cummins, Gasio and Sandoval.
I. and II. - RESPECTIVE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONS AND INDUSTRIAL ENCROACHMENT IN
THE CANYON AREA: Mr. Rudy Valenzuela, Redevelopment Commissioner, first questioned
the idea of the Redevelopment Commission being involved with Planning Commission.
Councilman Roth stated that he believed it evolved in a discussion held with the
Housing Commission and their approach in looking for land in areas where the
possibility of low-cost housing could be placed in the City. The Mayor and he
were on the Liaison Committee with Housing and at the conclusion of one meeting,
it was felt that Housing was looking for leadership to come from the Council, as
well as a coordination of efforts with the Planning Commission, to ascertain their
attitude.
Mr. Stewart Moss, Redevelopment Commissioner, stated that his Commission was
particularly concerned at one time about their relationship with the Planning
Commission relative to issues within the Project Area as to the level of jur-
isdiction that each of their respective Commissions might have. He had person-
ally resolved that to his own satisfaction and believed that the rest of the
Commission had as well, but at the time the agenda was formulated for the joint
meeting, he believed that there was some question.
Planning Commissioner Charlene Barnes stated that at one time there was a
question which came from a misunderstanding about how the Planning Commission's
hands were tied in specific instances when voting on special issues, but she
did not remember any problems in the recent past.
Planning Commissioner Glen Johnson stated that he was sorry that Commissioner
Herbst could not have been present to articulate the problem he felt might have
existed. As a Planning Commission, when downtown properties in the Redevelopment
78-1713
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
area were involved, they listened to everything the Redevelopment Commission
had to say because it was their "baby" and problem. They did wonder at times
about the outer portion of the Atwood area being included in the Redevelop-
ment area. They did not see the problems of underdevelopment or a Redevelopment
need in that area. Therefore, they wondered whether Redevelopment should be
harnessed with that portion of the Anaheim Industrial Zone.
Mayor Seymour stated that the intent of including that portion was, (1) that
there might be need for some of the areas in that vicinity to benefit from
the Redevelopment Program, and (2) the type of development that would probably
take place would generate some handsome tax increment revenues that would be
of assistance in paying for the cost of Redevelopment in the downtown area. He
did not believe that posture had changed.
Mr. Moss stated that relative to the northeast industrial area, their concern
was commercial type development that had taken place in that area and their
advisory activity had been directed to the Planning Commission along those lines.
The Redevelopment Commission had a specific interest in that matter. In looking
at the overall development of industrial property, they felt as part of the
project area that the concern for industrial development in that area was keep-
ing within their area of activity. The concern of commercial being developed
in and around industrial areas was one of both Commissions and the input the
Redevelopment Commission tried to provide for the Planning Commission had been
directed simply to expressing their feelings toward that type of development
and the problems involved. They felt that the project area in that location
was specifically directed for industrial development.
Redevelopment Commissioner Mary Dinndorf stated that she felt it was specific-
ally industrial area, but she was personally not opposed to any compatible
commercial development. They did not feel a furniture store was compatible
with industrial services, but a bank, restaurant and other uses that would go
along with industrial. They became concerned over the approval of many con-
ditional use permits and variances they felt were not compatible with the
integrity of the area.
Mr. Valenzuela stated that their Commission was known as a planning commis-
sion, as well as the City's Planning Commission. He was somewhat in the dark as
to what the Redevelopment Commission's role was as a planning commission in
the Redevelopment area. He asked if they were to function as did the City
Planning Commission and the rest of the City.
Mayor Seymour stated that they had to plan for development in the Redevelopment
Project area and he believed their planning role was almost consistent with
the General Plan. The City Planning Commission had to become part of that
planning process and endorse it as well.
Mr. Valenzuela then asked, since the project area was theirs, would they actually
change the zoning or planning and could they actually do all of those things.
78-1714
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that they could make recommendations and the City Council
and Redevelopment Agency would make the final decision. However, the General
Plan was amended from time to time and variances and CUPs granted. Those were
certainly within their purview, but they should not get the idea that the City
Planning Commission might be bypassed or not asked their opinion. There were
distinctive roles and specifically the Planning Commission was much more involved
in planning in the entire City than the Redevelopment Commission was involved in
that planning. Their charge (Redevelopment Commission) was to look at whatever
took place in Redevelopment Project Alpha as to how it pertained to and affected
the Redevelopment Program. The City Planning Commission had the entire City
and thus a much broader scope. Therefore, they would be viewing the recommenda-
tions from the Redevelopment Commission not only as it related to the use and
how it would fit in the Project Area, but also the entire City.
Redevelopment Commissioner Ben Bay stated when the agenda was first made up
before the meeting of the Planning Commission Workshop with the Chamber of
Commerce, there were some doubts on the part of the Redevelopment Commission
as to whether the lack of control or degree of control in the industrial area
in the canyon was getting beyond the scope of the Redevelopment Plan. He did
not think that the general fulfilling of the Commission was to get into the
City Planning Commission's direct function. That had not been a majority opin-
ion on the Commission. However, they became concerned basically because they
were witnessing commercial encroachment, both legally and illegally, in the
canyon area. He personally had been concerned about the situation for months.
Their Resolution, CRC78-4, which had been submitted to the Council stated the
majority opinion of the Commission on what they considered a problem in that
industrial area. He did not believe they had a problem with Item I on the
agenda relative to roles because he did not think there was any disagreement
between the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission on the problem
that existed in the canyon.
From his attendance at the workshop meeting, it appeared that the Chamber,
the Planning Commission, and Redevelopment Commission were totally in agreement
that there was a problem in the canyon area. Therefore, the question was,
could they agree on what they were going to do to resolve the problem. His
feeling prior to the workshop was that there was a great deal of precedence setting
going on, not only by the Planning Commission, but also the Council, in terms
of variances, CUPs and waivers. That was an easy path but not an answer to
a long-range problem of an industrial area turning into commercial. They
were looking for a better definition of the problem, (1) through some studies
to find out how much illegal operation was going on and what they were going
to do about it, and (2) in the meantime, what was going to be done to stop
the commercial encroachment from destroying their industrial base in the canyon
not only that existing, but also future growth.
Mayor Seymour stated that perhaps an expression by each Council Member would
give Planning, as well as Redevelopment, an understanding as to Council think-
ing. He had given thought to the matter and, speaking in general terms and
not to a specific project, they should be alert and not permit "strip type"
78-1715
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19~ 1978, 7:30 P.M. .
commercial development. There were enough examples of that type of planning
throughout Southern California and Orange County, and he did not want to see it
in the canyon or anywhere else in the City. In the past, they had supported that
type of commercial development supportive of industrial development. That had
been the policy and philosophy of the Council in the past years. He was pre-
pared to look beyond that and if there could be commercial development in the
appropriate places within the industrially zoned area consistent with the high
quality of development that could be seen in such cities as Irvine, Mission
Viejo, Costa Mesa, etc., he would be supportive. What he had seen in those
cities were large parcels of property, not small pieces of strip commercial,
typically freeway oriented, offering some type of commercial uses. One
specific project that was proposed in the City's industrial area that ended
up in Mission Viejo was a mobile recreation vehicle sales facility just off
the freeway in Mission Viejo. Another example was automobile row in Irvine.
Those were a very high quality, all brought together, well planned and well'
laid out.
A couple of reasons for his thinking in that direction were, (1) good plan-
ning was a changing process and not fixed and, therefore, there was room for
creative and innovative thinking relative to planning, and (2) in the days o~
Proposition 13, cities must look more and more towards their revenue base
outside of property taxes to insure a steady flow of such revenue. There
were some commercial businesses that offered those types of sources of revenue.
Councilman Roth stated that relative to a moratorium as suggested by the Rede-
velopment Commission, as a Council Member, the chain he would like to see
followed was to have the resolution go from the Redevelopment Commission to
the Planning Commission for recommendation, either supportive or negative.
Such interaction in recommendations would help him to formulate which way to
go. Personally, he was protective of the remaining industrial land in Anaheim;
however, he had to agree with the Mayor that he, too, had problems with the
moratorium concept. He had also looked at the developments at which the
Mayor referred, particularly the one on Euclid Avenue in Fountain Valley against
the San Diego Freeway. They had done a good job relative to a limited type
of furniture warehousing along with some show windows which brought in a
great deal of gross receipts. He reiterated that while he was protective of
the industrial areas and the placing of formidable standards on such properties,
he would have to look at each project on an individual case basis. He also
favored meetings such as the workshop meeting held with the Chamber and to-
night's meeting because they were healthy. In concluding, he stated that he
solicited recommendations from both Commissions so that when hearings were
held and CUPs and variances were brought before them, those recommendations
would give him the means by which to make a valid judgment.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not know there was a problem or that one
presently existed unless it was a communication problem. The three Commissions
(Planning, Redevelopment and Housing Commissions) had been in existence for
a number of years and therefore he did not understand why they had to discuss
respective roles of each of the commissions. Before he could make any comment,
he had to understand the problem.
78-1716
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had a concern just as the Redevelopment
Commission and some of their Planning Commissioners regarding the industrial
area. She emphasized that the area of industrial land was diminishing in the
County and next to Irvine, Anaheim had the largest parcel left and there was
not that much remaining. She felt very protective of it and wanted to preserve
the integrity of the industrial area. That was where the job base and tax base
was coming from. Relative to furniture stores, she had never seen so many
sprouting up and believed there were just so many that could be in an area and
be successful. Subsequently when they moved out what was left was a large
commercial building and she was very concerned about that prospect. There
were many uses that would have to be taken on an individual basis. Some were
new types that were also servicing the industrial area which made sense for it
to be there, but not something that was unquestionably commercial. She cited
the example of Wickes Furniture where an industrial parcel was changed to
commercial because they needed a railroad spur for incoming furniture. They
were going to be manufacturing furniture on site, but it never happened, and
it turned out to be strictly large scale commercial. Also the very large
corner at La Palma and Magnolia was supposed to have been an industrial park
and that also never happened. She concluded that they had to safeguard care-
fully the industrial land that was left and not make the same mistakes in the
canyon as in the rest of the City.
Councilman Overholt stated that in his experience on the Council, his observation
started with the basic premise that they were not going to interfere with the
General Plan industrial base. As the Mayor stated, from time to time a high
quality project presented itself compatible with the industrial zone. He
believed what the Council was saying was that each should be taken on a case-by-
case basis.
In concluding, he stated that he shared the view of the Chamber of Commerce that
the City should not let the industrial base go, but being in a changing society,
quality and compatability was of the greatest importance.
Mr. Bay stated even with compatible commercial uses traffic projectable within
the industrial area with the limited uses in that area still presented a problem.
During the workshop meeting, they asked for some projections from the Traffic
Department figuring a certain percentage of commercial in that industrial area
and what would be done with that traffic.
He continued that he did not see where some of the things called compatible
commercial in the area presently were compatible at all, citing as an example
a dance studio, as well as other spot commercial developments, that were very
representative of strip commercial, and he did not know if they were legal or
illegal. What they were trying to convey with their resolution was that they
could not fully find the problem or the extent of it without more study. What
he wanted to see from the Council was a direction to staff to perform some of
the studies they were asking for in order to determine the problem. How
many of the uses were legal, how much illegal, how much were in support of
industrial and how much were not. What were the traffic projections if they
continued at the present rate of commercial and how much commercial was nec-
essary to support an industrial area. He maintained that they could lose some
of the industrial base in that area if the present commercial development con-
78-1717
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES-
December 19~ 1978, 7:30 P.M.
tinued at the rate they were seeing. That was his opinion, but he did not have
the study facts to back that up and he did not think that any of them could
agree that the problem existed without those studies. They had every indication
that illegal commercial was going on in the area. A traffic ratio of 12 to 1 for
commercial vs. industrial was the ratio projected across commercial use in the
area which would tie up that area in traffic knots. He reiterated that without
specific studies to ascertain the true percentage of commercial use and the
traffic problems projected, he did not know how they could approach the problem.
He wanted studies performed with the enforcement of zoning.
The Mayor asked who was going to perform that enforcement and if it was going
to come out of their budget.
Mr. Bay stated that the City had one Zoning Enforcement Officer and an open
requisition for a second one.
Mr. Moss stated that he could not explain it any better and he felt it was
very clear if they were to go through the area, they would find operations that
were illegal. To his way of thinking, there should be a very specific time
limit, as short as possible, but as long as it would take to get someone into
the area, to enforce the law to bring those operations to a halt. In trying to
assess the problem, he maintained that some sort of study or another was needed.
His first thought in discussing money, was that it was not necessarily the
place for Redevelopment funds, and he was not certain those funds could be used
for enforcement operation of that nature. It seemed to him that the burden
of the operation fell back to the Planning Department, vis a vis the City
Council, which was the reason for the resolution coming back through the Agency
to the City Council for action.
Commissioner Barnes then referred to the commercial development in industrial
areas in Westlake, Laguna Hills and Irvine that were well planned and compat-
ible and perhaps they could assist in the studies. Those cities should have
a good idea of traffic counts and how commercial would fit in and by obtaining
their ideas they could avoid spending staff time. The problem was the phil-
osophy involved and the question to be answered was, what was their philosophy.
Did the City want commercial along freeways and frontage roads? She did not
think that commercial should necessarily be excluded from an industrial area~
but the only way they could have that commercial was to plan properly. Some-
thing she had wanted for three and a half years and that should have been done
in the beginning, was to have master planned the industrial area. They had
problems even with incompatible industrial uses right next door to each other
and she cited such an example. She wanted the Industrial Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce to look at that situation and make recommendations to the
Commission. She was of the opinion that they ought to have some input, but
thus far she had seen none.
The Mayor stated that he was not opposed to any study and also would not be
opposed to an inventory of illegal uses. Perhaps a number of uses were in
before the time the City had ordinances developed, and an inventory would
certainly be appropriate or whatever action was necessary to move them out.
On the other hand, he did not believe in a moratorium and if they planned
intelligently, there was no need for such a moratorium.
78-1718
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
Commissioner Dinndorf inquired as to whether or not there was a way to punch
information onto business licenses.
City Manager William Talley stated that the licenses were by category, but
not by a specific area and they were also identified by address. They would
have to be certain that everybody was licensed and that could be done if the
addresses were well known, but otherwise there were thousands of businesses
involved. It would not be possible to know whether they were legal or illegal
unless someone walked into every one of them.
Commissioner Dinndorf stated that by seeing the license, the matter would be
simplified for a Zoning Officer to go and check those addresses to ascertain
if they were a legal or illegal operation. It would cut down on the time any
moratorium would be in effect if there was a study done rapidly and as inexpen-
sively as possible.
Mayor Seymour stated since there were budgetary restraints and since this was a
Redevelopment project, Redevelopment should fund such a project; Mr. Moss
suggested asking Mr. Priest if he knew whether funding of that nature was
within the scope of Redevelopment activities.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, stated he believed
they were in a questionable area, but he would be happy to explore the situation.
In his opinion, the kind of survey being discussed, if for planning purposes,
would be their only lever. And they would continue to explore the matter but
he did not want to give high hopes for it. Their performing such a study would
not essentially be designed for enforcement as would be the Planning Department
or zoning enforcement people. The enforcement they had was to acquire a pro-
perty if not in compliance, but they did not have any police power. If the
property was not in compliance with zoning, they would refer the matter to
Zoning or Building, the Health Department or some other department or agency
who had enforcement power.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to ask the Redevelopment Commission to work
with the Redevelopment Department to (1) investigate the legality of conducting
a survey relative to possible illegal actions in the canyon Redevelopment project
area and (2) prepare a request for proposals as to what should be embodied in
such a study, to be submitted to the Council and Redevelopment Agency for ap-
proval. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Ko tt recommended that they simply ask the attorney who met with the
Redevelopment Commission if they would have those enforcement powers and if
there were budgetary restrictions pertaining to such studies.
Mr. Moss answered that to his knowledge no one had ever come forth and asked
the question as to whether the Redevelopment Agency had any type of enforcement
power beyond that which Mr. Priest described.
Planning Commissioner Gerald Bushore stated his opinion in that by giving the
matter to Redevelopment to look into, was starting off on the wrong foot.
78-1719
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
If they were going to protect the canyon, it was up to the Commission and
the Planning Department relative to zoning.
Mr. Moss emphasized again that they had indications of actual illegal ac-
tivities taking place and it was not within the purview of the Redevelopment
Commission, nor the Agency, to take action against those individuals committing
illegal acts and that responsibility fell within the City Council or other
City Departments. That was why they went back to the Council with their
resolution. If such things were occurring and going against what they were
trying to do, they felt that action was necessary which put the matter back
into the lap of the Council.
The Mayor, speaking to the motion, stated that his concern for the subject
they were talking about was only to industrial encroachment in the canyon'
area. He did not find any fault whatsoever with industrial development taking
place in other sections of the City if it was of high quality, but there
seemed to be a growing demand in the marketplace to develop along freeway
arteries commercial properties that were in industrial areas. That was where
the action was at out in the canyon. Thus, he did feel it was a matter for
the Redevelopment Commission, but he wanted all input from the Planning
Commission as they went through the study and results came forth.
M~. Bushore stated he realized the majority of problems were within the
canyon and suggested that they might look at the canyon immediately and
then look at the City's other industrial zones as well relative to the long
term since there were uses that he saw in all industrial areas that were
questionable. He believed that they had to have a mixture, but they had
been amiss in planning that m~lxture. He was presently of the opinion that
they would study the matter to death before coming up with a conclusion.
As an alternative, he proposed that within the industrial zone of the
Redevelopment area that a six-month moratorium be instituted so that staff
could look at that area and so designate it as being supportive of commercial
in the industrial zone. As soon as the moratorium ended, that would be the
time to start sweeping through the canyon for illegal uses and subsequent
clean up.
The Mayor stated that the only difference between what Mr. Bushore suggested
and the motion before the Council was the moratorium aspect, but otherwise it'
was identical. He clarified also that he was speaking of the industrial area
in the canyon and that contained the Redevelopment project area, rather than
the entire City.
Mr. Moss referred to a master plan about which Commissioner Barnes spoke.
Looking back at the basis of the problem relative to the canyon area, it was
the proximity of a large area of residential development. A large residential
population brought about a pressure for commercial activities. He felt that
they needed to take another look at the General Plan for that area to deter-
mine how to relieve those pressures for commercial activity. At present,
those pressures were focusing themselves on the industrial area which was not
planned for commercial but industrial.
78-1720
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated that the Council had expressed themselves that, (1) they were
protective of industrial property and, (2) their minds were not closed to the
consideration of a well planned development on a large scale, but getting away
totally from strip commercial. That might well be the fallout of the study
embodied in the motion being offered. As a simplification, it' was (1) direct-
ing the Redevelopment Commission to get together with their staff to see if
it was legal to undertake a study of the Redevelopment Project Area in the
canyon which, in essence, was industrial property and, (2) prepare a request
for proposals of what they thought should be embodied in such a study and send
it to the Redevelopment Agency and Council for approval.
Mr. Moss stated that was in agreement with his thinking. They were talking
initially about a short-term use to provide a basis for a longer term use to
come later. Going back to their resolution, in order to accomplish that and
prevent continued erosion of the area was still the need to impose some sort
of moratorium on CUPs and growth in terms of commercial development.
The Mayor reiterated his opposition to a moratorium. The fact that the meeting
was taking place and there was dialogue between the Council, the Redevelopment
and Planning Commissions about the subject, would be a beneficial fallout as
the Planning Commission began to look at future projects that would come before
them. He maintained a moratorium was not necessary to do that.
Mr. Bay recommended that since the Mayor was so set against the moratorium, a
statement of policy be issued that would add a little more teeth to make it
tougher to get variances, CHPs or reclassifications in that area in the mean
time. What the Planning Commission indicated in its workshop was that they
were more or less working on precedents, just as was done all over the City, a
City which was full of strip commercial.
The Mayor countered that he did not believe that was correct at all. The
Planning Commission was not acting on precedents in order to establish strip
commercial in the City. He had not seen that action from the Planning Commis-
sion.
Mr. Bay stated that he was not saying that was done purposely, but their de-
cisions were based on pressures that they were under from the developers. It
was a fact that driving on Kraemer, from La Palma to Orangethorpe, lined with
industrial buildings, every one had show windows and signs out front encouraging
commercial development. All he was trying to say was if something was not
changed, other than a study, nothing that he could see would change the develop-
ment from continuing on its present course.
Commissioner Bushore stated that he passed the area every morning and for as
long as he had been on the Planning Commission, he was certain that there
were less than three commercial ventures passed in that area. He did not
know how commercial got here but he had a feeling that most were illegal. He
had asked someone on staff how it was that those companies were getting bus-
iness licenses and if they were mailed ~in, perhaps they were not referred to
the Planning Department.
78-1721
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19~ 1978, 7:30 P.M.
Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that they were directed to ~usiness
License, and if they were mailed in they were still ultimately directed to
the Planning Department.
Mr. Bushore stated that was a misunderstanding as to what he thought was
happening. As well, he was concerned over the fact that there was only one
Zoning Enforcement Officer, with another to be coming on board, in a City of
over 200,000 citizens.
Mayor Seymour explained that the Council received daily calls regarding zoning
enforcement problems throughout the City, and they needed somebody to respond.
They cOuld not be without his services for six months. He was hopeful if they
could find a legal way through Redevelopment to make a survey of illegal
businesses, they could do the types of things being requested. He believed
that could be accomplished by the Redevelopment Commission and Agency through
the Redevelopment Project in that area. If it was not feasible to act in
that manner, then they would probably have to look to the Council Contingency
Fund to see if the Council wanted to spend the money to accomplish the
objective.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
III. - EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CANYON AREA: Redevelopment
Commissioner Mary Dinndorf noted that on two reports which she had, one
dated June 23, 1978 and the other July 1978, that the count was slightly
different relative to residential units. The earliest one she received which
had the latest date showed 199 residential units, 68 of those being multiple
family. The other showed 122 units. Her concern was the fact that some of
the houses were very nice residential parcels. She.was aware of the scarcity
of housing and the subject houses were some of the lower income type housing
units that would meet the criteria if such an element were a part of the
General Plan. She was concerned as to the disposition that would be made of
the existing housing parcels, most of which were located along Orangethorpe
Avenue. She wanted to know if those were going to be saved. The tract was
about seven or eight years old and there were also some nice multiple family
units in the vicinity. Her main point was whether or not they were going to
work on preserving residential areas even in the industrial area.
Mr. Bay offered a word of caution in that they were going to have to talk
about specific residential areas when speaking about a preservation policy
similar to preservation in the downtown Project Area. There were some groUps
of homes in the northwest industrial area as Mrs. Dinndorf mentioned, but they
were also scattered throughout along with some individual pockets of older
homes and some blighted areas. Thus, if they were thinking about moving for
neighborhood preservation in the canyon, it was necessary to speak about
specifi6 areas.
Councilman Roth stated that would be an excellent project for the Redevelopment
Commission to pinpoint those properties and keep the Council advised and also
when they should be intervening to keep the housing up to standards. This was
an area that was one of the responsibilities of the Commission.
78-1722
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
IV. POLICY DIRECTION FOR PRODUCTION OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING:
Mayor Seymour then asked to hear from the Housing Commission with subsequent
discussion among the Planning Commission, Redevelopment and the Council as to
what those bodies might consider in order to assist the Housing Commission in
reaching worthwhile goals.
Jackie Dvorman, Chairman of the Housing Commission, then briefed the Council on
report entitled Assesment of Housing Conditions, page 1 and 2 (on file in the
City Clerk's office) which listed Housing Needs, Existing Programs and Proposed
Programs for Unmet Needs.
Mrs. Dvorman added that the Orange County Grand Jury last year studied housing
in the County and they were quite critical of it. However, of the two cities
they applauded, Anaheim was one. They felt that Anaheim was doing a superb job
of meeting housing needs in the community.
The Mayor first commended the Commission for an outstanding report. He then
asked Councilman Roth to share with the Planning and Redevelopment Commissions
the thoughts he had relative to meeting some of the needs for housing as it
pertained to downtown and Redevelopment.
Councilman Roth explained when he and the Mayor met in the Liaison Committee
Concept they discussed many things. One phase in which he was particularly
interested was that the Planning Commission would have to work with the Housing
Commission, the concept being to provide livable housing for low income people
since there was no such thing as low-cost housing. One of the areas to be evaluated
was the possibility of reducing the cost of houming by taking another look at the
"flat land" and the zero lot line concept and squeezing smaller lots onto a piece
of property in order to bring the price of land down. It was his opinion that
should be one of the priorities of the Planning Commission, to work with Housing
in getting the cost down in order to make some affordable housing in Anaheim.
The other problem discussed was assembling parcels of land for building Section 8
housing or any type of subsidized housing. This proved to be extremely difficult.
There was only one piece of land and that was the Caltrans property in the north-
east area of the City at Imperial and Orangethorpe. In his opinion, that was one
of the poorest placed pieces of property available in Anaheim due to the fact that
many high speed freight trains went by on a daily basis, and Imperial Highway was
located on the other side of the property. Perhaps the worst problem was the
narrowness of the property itself. He did not believe that it was a good piece
of property to work with relative to housing, but it was an ideal piece of
commercial property. He maintained that there were serious problems with the
only piece of property they could find for housing, and thus, it would be necessary
to continue looking for such property. He was not certain that there was any
future development for housing in the downtown area. In concluding, he stated
it was important for the three Commissions to get together and discuss the matter
in order to give some recommendations to the Council. He too commended the
Housing Commission on their report, but the question remained as to how they would
proceed.
78-1723
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that one of the points made at the meeting was that
either the Planning Commission or Redevelopment had to take a look at the
downtown property within the Redevelopment Project Area and outside the area
to provide some creative planning. For example, as Councilman Roth suggested,
if there was a single-family residence located on a piece of property but it
was near the downtown area, why was it not possible to remove that residence
because there was no way to rehabilitate and save it and in exchange build a
duplex. That was a different approach than that used by the Planning Commission
and Redevelopment Commission. With that type of thinking they might be able
to increase the housing supply without concentrating that supply. With such an
innovative approach, it would be possible to deconcentrate a supply of low and
moderate income housing. The bottom line, as Councilman Roth suggested, was.
that the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission were going to
have to take a different look at the situation. Those were the thoughts they
wanted to convey to the Housing Commission and the Planning and the Redevelopment
Commission.
Councilman Roth stated that at the time of the meeting, he was looking at a
piece of property on North Anaheim Blvd. containing two lots with three old
dilapidated, unlivable homes. Someone could have developed it with two story
buildings and/or duplexes on each one, but the problem was the fact that there
were single family homes along Anaheim Blvd. within 100 feet. Thus, nothing
could be done with the property and it was still sitting there when there was
opportunity to have built fourplexes resulting in good, livable housing at
lower cost, while at the same time building up the housing stock.
Commissioner Barnes stated she did not think the Planning Commission was in dis-
agreement and thought that they were the ones who initiated the question. It
was unanimous amongst the Commission that they wanted to see low income housing
and change some of the things that had gone on before. They were looking at the
highrise concept and Commissioner Herbst had suggested an ordinance to permit
highrise buildings. They were not able to do some of the things previously
suggested because of existing ordinances, and they needed some direction in order
to be able to provide an answer to the problem.
Mayor Seymour suggested it would be meaningful if the Planning Commission at their
next meeting could appoint a subcommittee, two or three memebers of the Commission,
to meet with the Housing Commission on the matter. Relative to highrise, the
trend was directly away from that concept, but it did not mean that there could
not be a highrise development, yet mixed in that same building, low, moderate and
higher income housing. He again reiterated the suggestion, since the Housing
Commission needed the help of the City Planning Commission, it would be most
helpful for the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission to appoint
a subcommittee of Commissioners and subsequently meet with Housing to ask what
they could do to help. Housing had not had the proper direction or support that
the Council should have already given them.
Commissioner Barnes stated that all Planning Commissioners were willing to do
everything and anything possible to get some low-cost housing.
78-1724
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978.~ 7:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what they could expect in the way of subsidies or
innovative ideas.
Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Manager Lisa Stipkovich stated that
they were preparing another Section 8 application and were also working on
the possiblity of acquiring a parcel that would be used for Section 8 housing,
as well as to acquire funds for that project and HUD was pushing for that at
the present time. They also hoped to develop a home ownership program through
the 235 Program for which some 1500 units were available. If they could develop
a program to qualify, they could get as many of those units as they could handle.
Councilman Roth left the Multipurpose Room. (9:25 P.M.)
Mayor Seymour expressed a note of caution in that the Housing Com~ission had
shown in their housing needs that the City had 12,308 citizens who needed
assistance and also a waiting list of an additional 1,000 Anaheim residents.
They had the responsibility to provide low- and moderate-income housing for
Anaheim citizens, but if they were to venture beyond that and open the gates to
invite more low and moderate income families who were living in some other city
not willing to do their fair share, that was the point at which to draw the line.
His personal philosophy was to help Anaheim citizens but he did not think it
appropriate that they invite or come up with programs that would invite those
outside the City limits when those within the City had not been satisfied.
Housing Commissioner Ed Gardner stated there was a built-in restriction against
that happening and all Anaheim citizens must be satisfied first.
Commissioner Moss stated that he was sorry that Councilman Roth had to leave
because he wanted to issue with him on one item and that was on the parcel of
land at Orangethorpe and Imperial which had been under consideration for some
time and probably before the Housing Commisssion did any study activity on it.
Councilman Roth had indicated it was one of worst possible sites for any type
of housing. However, immediately adjacent to that piece of property was a very
attractive and what appeared to be an expensive development in the same relative
location to the railroad tracks. Located on the southeast corner was an apart-
ment structure complete with lighted tennis courts that was one-half again as
close or closer to the railroad tracks. Thus he did not think it was valid to
say that the parcel was not suitable.
Mayor Seymour explained that Councilman Roth's opinion of that specific property
was not shared by either himself or the Housing Commission but there were other
practical reasons why that parcel should not be pursued; Mr. Moss stated he was
aware Of the other problems involved.
Mr. Moss continued that one of the problems he did not see addressed in the
Housing report relative to low-cost housing was what to do in an area where
land and developable property was at such a premium. The whole thrust of the
Redevelopment Project was to take the land in that entire portion of the City
and make it extremely valuable. How was it possible to do that with the purpose
of providing low-cost housing, and on the other hand, do everything to make it
extremely valuable land. He believed it was a situation where there was no way
78-1725
CentralLibrary, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
that private development was going to go in by itself and make any type of low-
cost or moderate-cost housing in the downtown area. It was possible to get sub-
sidized housing and to his way of thinking the only way it could be done. He
suspected that in order to get any volume of subsidized housing, the City was~
going to have to become more involved than they were at present in that area. He
continued that relative to the issue of single-family ownership and low/moderate
income housing, the American dream for everyone was an excellent idea, but from
a practical standpoint and given the overall financial conditions taking place in
Orange County, he personally did not see it as a practical idea. Perhaps it
could be accomplished on a condominium basis, but he did not think that low-cost,
single-family residential existed and would not be possible even with the type
of controls suggested relative to maintaining the low-cost level.
Housing Commissioner Pat Bailey asked if he was suggesting that outside of
condominiums, the type of housing would be more rental than ownership.
Mr. Moss answered, in a general sense that was correct, but there had to be ex-
ceptions to every rule and there would be those individuals who would be able
to achieve ownership status. If ownership was going to be possible at all, he
could not see it being done unless there was massive Federal, State and Local
subsidies for such a program.
Mr. Priest stated that what he had been hearing was extremely useful. However,
they had been talking about a definition of roles and since three of the four
groups were directly involved with his Department in some fashion, he wanted to
define his perception of where he saw the Department staff fitting, as it related
to the Commissions. They were extremely appreciative of the policy guidance
they received. In discussing a specific site earlier in the meeting, he pointed
out that having received guidance and thoughts on that site previously, they
had proceeded to work with the adjacent owner on specific problems and they
were seeking to develop a working proposal. As he viewed it, it was not their
responsiblity to come back to the Council and ask if it made sense within their
general framework. He viewed it from the standpoint that the staff of Community
DeveloPment was working extremely hard on the matters at hand as soon as they
received input. In speaking about residential and industrial area, they had
not worked on that because there was no need to do so. At such a time they
would then come forward with positive suggestions. Finally as to the issue of
low cost housing, there was one place where the resource existed and that was
in older housing. There were many new ideas coming on line, one of which ~nvolved
going into partnersip ~ith the State, wherein the State would buy equity in a
house. He was not at all discouraged about the fact that they had not met the
need for low-cost and moderate-income housing. They were aware that the need
was there and as he perceived it, it was their function to start formulating ideas
and programs which they could come back and ask the Council if that was what
they wanted and they would continue to do that.
The Mayor asked howmany single-family residences were in existence in the
community block red area; Ms. Stipkovich stated there were approximately
7,000 units.
78-1726
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19~ 1978, 7:30 P.M.
The Mayor then continued that there were 7,000 homes where if they did not do
some of the things the Housing Commission was talking about, they would be
part of Redevelopment. He emphasized that the greatest single opportunity the
City had before it was to stop Redevelopment where it was at and recycle the
7,000 homes in some of the innovative ways Mr. Priest discussed. Perhaps they
should place major emphasis on home ownership and not rental because if they
could take one-half of those 7,000 units and assist a family of low and mod-
erate income to get on the first rung of the ladder of home ownership, infla-
tion would take them the rest of the way. He was opposed to the emphasis of
rental over home ownership.
Mr. Moss stated the major problem was new housing for new residents. One of the
biggest problems in the Southland was where to get the people who were going to
be the backbone of industries.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Moss was focusing on the new and that focus was not
correct. No one could build low cost housing new.
After a brief discussion between Mayor Seymour, Commissioner Moss and Commissioner
Dinndorf relative to the new housing aspect, Housing Commissioner Dvorman stated
that Block Grant Funds could be utilized and subsequently the developer would
put up a home that was affordable.
Mr. Moss then stated that several questions came to mind: (1) Through that
procedure, how much could they write down to try to bring the overall package
within the low/moderate income level and, (2) what percentage of the 7,000
were they going to be able to increase that stock with those means? He was
not opposed to what was being done because he thought this and other methods
mentioned were the only alternatives but at the same time he wanted to know if
that was enough. He felt if anything had the opportunity to provide the great-
est number of units with the greatest possibility of individual ownership, that
it was going to be the multiple unit concept, rather than single-family residential.
The Mayor stated that unless the Council disagreed, the appropriate thing to do
was to have two or three Redevelopment Commissioners and the Planning Commission
meet with the Housing Commission and pursue some of the things discussed.
Mrs. Bailey, in answering Mr. Moss, stated that not all of those who lived in
rental housing would find it feasible to own property because of physical, health
or age reasons. It was much more convenient to rent from a landlord where the
maintenance was taken care of by other than the tenant. There were always
going to be people who would prefer to rent over ownership.
Mr. Bay stated his thinking had also been on mass production of housing, not
mobile homes, but factory type housing or pre-fabs. The increase of productivity
in producing homes was the only foreseeable way of bringing the single family
home down to an affordable price. He suggested mass production pre-fabs and
ordinances that would modify Building Codes to permit smaller lots. Those were
the kinds of ideas that had to be explored on a long-term basis.
78-1727
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
The Mayor explained that approximately three weeks prior the Council had already
passed a motion directing staff and the Planning Commission to look at those types
of things (See meeting of November 7, 1978).
Councilman Kott then posed several questions relative to the Housing Commission
report which were clarified by both Commissioner Dvorman and Lisa Stipkovich.
In concluding the matter, Ed Gardner stated that relative to single-family
dwellings, he was not certain they were stuck with putting one house on one
lot. They had become used to using that term, but there were new things like
condominiums, duplexes, townhouses and other concepts where they would not have
to have a single-family in a single dwelling on a single lot. As far as he was
concerned, they might never again build such a unit, but instead condominiums
where the land cost would be written down with HUD funds, home ownership, rather
than house ownership.
TASK FORCE CONCEPT: Councilman Kott stated that about one month prior it was
voted to establish a Task Force in the canyon area with the object being to
review and create new zoning conditions and grading ordinances that might come
about due to future development in the easterly direction. At the time, he felt
there was sufficient authority and know-how on the Planning Commission in
particular, as well as HACMAC, but over his objections, the Council 4 to 1 voted to
create another layer of government known as a new Task Force. Since everybody
was present this evening, he thought it appropriate to (1) mention it to the
Planning Commission even though not all Members were present and (2) inform
those who would have an interest in and influence in that area as to what had
been going on. With that, he asked for dialogue and discussion with the
thought that the Council might see the wisdom from which he tried to propose
the elimination of the new entity and perhaps have the Planning Commission and
others proceed to take care of things, such as demolished hills and the like.
Mayor Seymour then gave the historical background as to how the new Task Force
proposal came about, the purpose for which was to discuss concerns relative to
the grading ordinance and the consideration of upgrading that ordinance, as well
as consideration for equestrian trails in the canyon area and home owner associa-
tions. Out of that meeting with Commissioner Barnes and Herbst, HACMAC members
Jan Hall, Lynn Buffington and Hans Gowa, Councilwoman Kaywood and he, they came
up with the Task Force and at the Council meeting, Councilman Kott suggested that
the matters could be handled by the Planning Commission. He (Kott) was now
asking the Council to reconsider that Task Force and the necessity for it.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a couple of thoughts on that matter. Relative
to Canyon Annexation No. 7 involving the Bauer Ranch and the Wallace Ranch,
they had asked for three representatives from those entities, but now the matter
was going before LAFCO January 10. Therefore, she did not see any purpose in
setting up a meeting prior to that time.
Commissisoner Barnes stated there was a lot of grading left to be done in the
Hills and she understood there was a project on Fairmont Boulevard and Canyon
Rim Road where it was proposed that some five million cubic yards of dirt be
78-1728
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
moved. One of the things discussed at the meeting was the amount of dirt being
moved and their concern was just that. However, that aspect was left out of
the grading ordinance. Another thing that was necessary was to define terms.
She did not perceive it as a long-term program.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Planning Commission could handle the situation
instead.
Commissioner Barnes stated that the Planning Commission could handle the matter;
however, they would need input from HACMAC who already stated their position in
expressing that they did not want to see that much dirt moved. What they needed
was direction from the Council as to how they felt about the canyon being filled
in, or if, id fact, they were to remain canyons.
Mayor Seymour stated that Councilwoman Kaywood raised a valid point in that the
Bauer and Wallace Ranch people may or may not be appropriate since it is pos-
sible that those properties may or may not be a part of the City some time in
the future. He was willing to reconsider the Task Force concept and since
time was of the essence, suggested going back to the Planning Commission and
HACMAC to ask those two bodies to deal with the problem.
Councilman Overholt agreed since he had received some negative reaction relative
to the new Task Force concept. He referred to what Commissioner-Barnes had said
that they would like to get direction from Council. Perhaps the Planning Commission
could present something to the Council for them to consider.
Councilman Kott stated that he believed policy was formulated on recommendations
by the people who knew what circumstances were. He did not think it would be
easy to make specific policies for all situations.
Mayor Seymour stated that there were three problems with which they had to deal,
hiking and riding trails, and the concept of homeowners' associations and how
they were applicable today. He sensed now that perhaps the Task Force concept
was not necessary and those matters could be handled ouside of that concept.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the problems of grading, hiking and
riding trails and homeowners' associations were to be assigned to the Planning
Commission and HACMAC to consider in work sessions, rather than forming a new
Task Force. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Redevelopemnt Commissioner Jane Oseid left the Multipurpose Room (10:09 P.M.).
Before a vote was taken on the motion, Councilman Kott stated that the
specific charge should be to come up with recommendations relative to grading.
Something should be formulated stating that people who purchased homes in the
area, particularly when the homes were right next to equestrian trails, should
be so informe~ since that was another problem.
Councilwoman ~aywood noted that it was the duty of the Council to set policy.
78-1729
Central Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
December 19~ 1978~ 7:30 P.M.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT--PLANNING COMMISSION: By general consent, the City Planning Commission
adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT--REDEVELOPMENT CO,MMISSION: By general consent, the Redevelopment
Commission adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT--HOUSING COMMISSION: By general consent, the Housing Commission
adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT--CITY COUNCIL:
Kaywood seconded the motion.
Adjourned: 10:12 P.M.
-JLIND~ D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.