1974/01/2974-97
Citv Hall. Anaheim. California -_COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council authorized the increase in monthly premium payments to Calif-
ornia Dental Service from $9.15 to $10.00 per employee per month. MOTION
CARRIED.
TERMS - RECENTLY APPROVED APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION: The City Clerk re-
ported that at the previous Council meeting of January 15, 1974 it was incor-
rectly reported that the unexpired terms of Mr. Lenzi Allred and Mr. Dan
Rowland expired at the same time. She informed the Council that Mr. Allred's
term would expire on June 30, 1977 and Mr. Rowland on June 30, 1975,and there-
fore it would be necessary to designate to which of these two terms Commission-
ers Johnson and Morley were appointed.
By tossing a coin, Council determined that Commissioner Morley will
fill the unexpired term of Lenzi, Allred ending June 30, 1977; and Commissioner
Johnson will fill the unexpired term of Dan Rowland ending June 30, 1975.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Sneegas moved to recess to Executive Session.
Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:27 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present.
(5:45 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Stephenson moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:45 P.M.
Signed ?21.�i�p.�lif?if�� -
City Clerk
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley (arrived 1:40 P.M.), Thom
and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
CITY CLERK: Alone M. Farrens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION:. Lt. Neil Hogan of the Salvation Army gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman,Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
DISNEYLAND AMBASSADOR: Mrs. Mary Jones of the Disneyland Public Relations
Office introduced the new 1974 Disneyland Ambassador, Carol DeKeyser,
to the Council.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Dutton welcomed Miss DeKeyser
and presented her with roses and an attache case to be used in her
additional capacity as a representative of the City of Anaheim.
74-98
City Hall, Anaheim, California ; COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held January 2, 1974,
were approved on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom 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 Councilmen unless, after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or
resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $1,551,036.81, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-20 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 99: Application by Joan Berry, et al, for a change in zone from R -A to
C-1 at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, was submitted,
together with Environmental Impact Report No. 99 and E.I.R. Review Committee
Analysis thereof.
The City Planning Commission,pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-213,
recommended denial of Reclassification No. 73-74-20 and that Council adopt E.I.R.
No. 99 with certain exceptions.
The public hearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-20, originally sch-
eduled October 16, 1973, was continued to December 18, 1973,and to this date for
submission of revised plans.
The City Clerk reported that an additional request has been received from
William H. Miller, Developer, dated January 14, 1974,for further continuance to
March 19, 1974,to allow time for staff analysis and Planning Commission consider-
ation of the revised plans.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council continued public hearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-20 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 99 to March 19, 1974,as requested by the devel-
oper. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-25, VARIANCE NO. 2563_AND _ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 104: Application by Edna G., Jack M. and Bernardo M. Yorba for a
change in zone from R -A to C-1 and the following Code waivers to establish a
planned commercial shopping center and motel at the northwest corner of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, was submitted together with E.I.R. No. 104 and
two addendums thereto:
a. Building setback from expressway.
b. Building setback from major arterial highway.
c. Landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-263,
recommended that Environmental Impact Report No. 104 with two addendums be adopted
as it pertains to the C-1 zoning and not to the conceptual plans submitted and
further recommended approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-25, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land a minimum of 52 feet in width from the centerline of the
street along the proposed future street on the west side of subject property for
street construction purposes, including standard property line returns for street
widening purposes.
2. That a standard property line return shall be dedicated to the City
of Anaheim at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
3. That the future street on the west side of subject property shall
be developed as an ultimate 60 -foot wide street with a full traveled way and one
parkway constructed with the development of this property.
4. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the proposed easterly
terminus of "old" Santa Ana Canyon Road.
5. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along
"old" Santa Ana Canyon Road and the future street along the westerly boundary
74-99
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCII, MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements
such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage fac-
ilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along "old"
Santa Ana Canyon Road, the future street, Santa Ana Canyon Road, and Imperial
Highway shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities,
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office
of the Director of Public Utilities and that a bond in an amount and form sat-
isfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the
installation of the above mentioned requirements.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall file a request with
the City of Anaheim for the abandonment of the City's easement over that portion
of "old" Santa Ana Canyon Road within subject project.
7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall purchase, at a mut-
ually acceptable price, that portion of the property which the City of Anaheim
owns in fee and which is within the boundaries of subject project.
8. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
9. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to com-
mencement of structural framing.
10. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
11. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffi-
cient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading
will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-
site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive
assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be com-
pleted prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage
facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have init-
iated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by
the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required
drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff
waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate
disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be
the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional through-
out the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate
point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or
occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made
available to the developers of said property upon their request.
12. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
13. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities,
shall be installed in the median and unpaved portion of the Santa Ana Canyon
Road parkway in accordance with plans for said landscaping to be submitted to
and approved by the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent. Following installation
and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for main-
tenance of said landscaping.
14. The City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assump-
tion of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes.
15. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter,
acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control District.
16. That the owner(s) shall request and receive approval of the pro-
posed new access point west of Imperial. Highway from the Anaheim City Council.
17. That precise plans, including plot plans, floor plans, elevations,
signing, lighting, roofing and landscaping treatment, shall be submitted to
the Development Services Department and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to the introduction of an ordinance
rezoning subject property.
19. .Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro-
perty, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 17, above-mentioned, shall be
completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become
null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied
with within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City
Council may grant.
74-100
City Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
19. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 13, above-mentioned, shall
be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Application for Variance No. 2563 was withdrawn by the Applicant at
the Planning Commission level.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded
by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council accepted Environmental Impact Report
No. 104 with two addendums and Committee Analysis thereof, together with City
Planning Commission recommendation and adopted same,excepting that portion
which pertains to the conceptual plans submitted,as the Environmental Impact
Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Ron Thompson described the location of the property and advised
that the Applicant proposes to combine subject property with another R -A zoned
parcel immediately adjacent to Imperial Highway for development of commercial
shopping facilities to supplement facilities under construction on the south
side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. The proposal would involve the extension of
Avenida Margarita Street northerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road to connect with Otd
Santa Ana Canyon Road and thereby provide access to the proposed commercial fac-
ility,as well as to the single-family residential tract to the north.
Mr. Thompson reported that the Planning Commission considered the com-
mercial zoning to be appropriate for subject property due to the fact that com-
mercial designation is indicated on the General Plan and since this particular
property could not be used for single-family homes because of its size, shape
and location. He advised that the City Planning Commission incorporated into
their resolution recommending approval, a condition which requires the Applicant
to submit precise plans for development prior to reading of an ordinance, so that
the City will be able to insure that the project will have minimal impact on the
existing residential tract to the north.
City Engineer James Maddox submitted a report regarding access to sub-
ject property, including Exhibit Nos. A and B which attempts to clarify the in-
tent on access both in the immediate future and at such time as the traffic on
Santa Ana Canyon Road reaches 25,000 ADT. Briefly, the report recommends that
interim access be provided to permit right turns into and out of the property
onto Santa Ana Canyon Road 360 or more feet westerly of the centerline of Imperial
Highway until such time as the average daily traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road
reaches or exceeds 25,000 vehicles. At that time, it is proposed that ingress
from a westerly direction only be permitted and that egress be through Old
Santa Ana Canyon Road and/or Avenida Margarita only.
Further the City Engineer recommended that the access point situation
be covered by written agreement similar to the one entered into recently with
Imperial Properties on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and,Imperial
Highway.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Ben Yorba, Agent and Applicant, pointed out that this rezoning
proposal will also require that a portion of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road be
abandoned. He advised that he proposes to close off one point of the five -point
intersection on the Old Santa Ana Canyon Road and then to develop suitable and
effectiveaccess onto Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Further Mr. Yorba remarked that he was concerned that the City Engineer's
recommendation for ultimate'access to the property provides for ingress only once
the ADT reaches 25,000 vehicles and made a comparison with the agreement for in-
gress and egress negotiated between the City and Mr. Rinker. He advised that he
would like to have the opportunity to present alternative methods for both in-
gress and egress which would, of course,be subject to approval by the City
Engineer and City Council.
The City Engineer pointed out the differences between the traffic flow
and methods of control on the two properties,and Mr. Yorba stated that he felt
the traffic exiting from his property could be channeled so that it did not merge
with the flow of traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road until a point somewhere north
of Avenida Margarita, and he desires an opportunity to work out a mutually satis-
factory arrangement.
74-101
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Yorba advised that the section of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road
which is to be developed in conjunction with this property has a 60 -foot right--
of-way whereas -he would like to place curbs and gutters at the 40 -foot width,
which is already partially developed,and utilize the remainder for either parl�-
ing or landscaping. A 60 -foot roadway would be in excess of what will be nec-
essary. He further advised that an access point will be developed at the wes-,
terly edge of the property and that all of these modifications would of course
be indicated on precise plans for development to be submitted to the City Pla..s.-
ning Commission and City Council for approval.
Mr. Murdoch summarized for Council that Mr. Yorba is requesting to
have an additional alternative to the recommendation shown in Exhibit No. B
(which shows ingress only to the property) prepared by the City Engineer, which
would provide for some other suitable method for handling traffic or..to Santa
Ana Canyon Road which would be subject to approval by the City Engineer at
time as the ADT reaches 25,000.
Mr. Yorba acknowledged this summary as correct.
'In regard to the proposal mentioned by Mr. Yorba relative to develop-
ing a portion of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road to 40 feet rather than 60 feet,
Mr. Murdoch advised that once this road is remodeled into a cul-de-sac,it will
become a local street and the City's standards for local streets require only
a 40 -foot width. He noted that a sidewalk waiver may be required to enable
parking and/or landscaping to encroach.into the 10,feet on either side of the
roadway as suggested by Mr. Yorba, but this could be handled when precise plans
are prepared and reviewed.
The Mayor asked if anyone else in favor or in opposition to the pro-
posed reclassification wished to address the Council.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz Street, President of the Santa Ana
Canyon Improvement Association advised that several residents of Canyon Acres
were present and requested that the various ingress and egress points to
subject parcel,as well as their impact on the adjacent R-1 tract,be explained.,,
Mr. Ronald Thompson, using the zoning map,indicated for the audience
the point at which Old Santa Ana Canyon Road would be closed and the location
of the proposed driveway 60 feet westerly of the intersection of Imperial High-
way and Santa Ana Canyon Road. He further advised that this driveway would be
utilized for both ingress and egress until such time as the traffic volume
reaches 25,000 vehicles per day on Santa Ana Canyon Road. The City Engineer
has proposed that at that time only a right turn into the shopping center at
this point would be allowed, unless some other appropriate alternative is agreed.
upon. The other means of entry into the proposed commercial facility will be
a four-way, signalized intersection on the south side of Santa Aria Canyon Road,
said intersection being that of Avenida Margarita (proposed new street) and
Laurel Drive (proposed to be extended). He advised that the five -point inter-
section on Santa Ana Canyon Road will be closed.
In answer to various interested members of the audience (not identi-
fied),Mr. Thompson explained that the house which would appear to be in the
right-of-way of Laurel Drive extension will not be removed but the street off-
set slightly. That the homes on Edgemar Avenue will ultimately have access to
Santa Ana Canyon Road and there will be a signalized intersection to provide
turning movements. Regarding concerns expressed relative to pedestrian access
for students at the new high school, Mr. Thompson felt the situation would most
likely result in improved safety since the five -point intersection would be
eliminated and sidewalks installed. He indicated the point at which the cul-
de-sac would be created on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road and advised -that this
would be closed on the east end and not on the west, but that approximately
250 feet of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road are proposed to be abandoned.
Certain members of the audience also expressed objections to parkin;
being permitted along Old Santa Ana Canyon Road adjacent to the R-1 tract.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf pointed out that subject property lies within the
Scenic Corridor Zone,and therefore is subject to the provision under Ordinance
74-102
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
No. 2999 that minimum project size within said Zone be five acres. She noted
that the Agenda did not give any specific amount of property but recalls that
the parcel in Reclassification No. 73-74-25 is only three acres. Further she
pointed out that hotels and motels are definitely excluded from the Scenic
Corridor area.
Mr. Yorba advised that the subject three -acre parcel is proposed to be
developed in conjunction with a two -acre parcel to the south which is already
under resolution of intent to C-1 and consequently the project meets the minimum
size requirement for the Scenic Corridor Zone.
Mrs. Dinndorf presented a five-page petition on behalf of the residents
of Canyon Acres I.
At the request of Mr. Yorba, Councilman Thorn read the prefacing state-
ment from the petition which indicated that those who have signed are opposed to
the proposed use of the land as a commercial area because it is contiguous to
a residential area, and they feel it would consequently deteriorate the neighbor-
hood, lower property values and destroy the atmosphere of the canyon. Specifi-..
cally it indicates opposition to development of the proposed motel as they feel
this would deprive the residents in the immediate area of any privacy whatsoever.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in
favor or in opposition and hearing no response, offered the Applicant a few min-
utes for rebuttal.
Mr. Yorba advised that he has withdrawn the application for Variance
No. 2563 which requested Code waivers regarding building setbacks, and stated
that a hotel is not a use allowed within the C-1 Zone, but that a conditional
use permit would be required. He noted that he had not filed for conditional
use permit and has no intentions at this time of constructing a motel or hotel
in conjunction with this commercial development.
Mayor Dutton closed the hearing.
The City Engineer requested, should Council approve the reclassifica-
tion, that the wording of Condition No. 16 as recommended by the City Planning
Commission be amended to include the following:
"That approval of such access points shall be in the form of agree-
ment to be prepared by the City Attorney and recorded."
RESOLUTION N0. 74R-30: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-30 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission, with amendment to Condition No. 16 as outlined and recommended by the
City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING. AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(73-74-25 - C-1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-30 duly passed and adopted..
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-32 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMP-
TION STATUS: Application initiated by the City Planning Commission for a change in
zone from County of Orange 100-E4-20,000 District to City of Anaheim R -A, on prop-
erty located northwesterly of the intersection of Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl
Ranch Road, west of Hillcrest Street, was submitted together with application for
Exemption Declaration Status from filing of an environmental impact report.
74-103
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-265,
recommended that no environmental impact report be required and that said
reclassification be.approved subject to the following condition:
1. That these reclassification proceedings are. granted subject to
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION STATUS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilman Stephenson, it was the finding of the City Council that
the impact of Reclassification No. 73-74-32 would be trivial in nature and that
no environmental impact report or statement is required. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Thompson explained that basically this reclassification will
establish the City of Anaheim R -A Zone on subject 12 acres at such time as the
property is annexed to the City.
In answer to a concerned member of the audience (unidentified), Mr.
Thompson advised that at the present time there is no pending zoning or develop-
ment proposed for the property and that should any change in the status of this
zone be requested, all property owners within 300 feet would be notified in
advance of the public hearing.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in
favor or in opposition to the proposed reclassification; there being no response,
declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-31: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-31 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the
zone, subject to the condition recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(73-74-32 - R -A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCIIMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-31 duly passed and adopted.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - JOLLY OX RESTAURANT: In reference to the Order to Show Cause
authorized by the City Council at the meeting of January 2, 1974, against the
Jolly Ox Restaurant, 950 South Ox Road, Mr. Mac Slaughter of the City Attorney's
Office reported that the Police Department has investigated the situation and
has informed them that the dance floor at this establishment has been removed
and there is no bandstand on the premises -at this time... Inview of this and
also due to the fact that in a conversation with the manager of the restaurant
who indicated his willingness to stipulate that no dinner -dancing would be con-
ducted on the premises unless the floor complies with the 300 -square foot.
requirement of the Code, Mr. Slaughter recommended that the Order to -Show
Cause be removed from the Agenda.
Mr. Slaughter reiterated that the manager, Mr. Wally Dulen, has stated
that they will comply with the Code requirements while seeking some method of
-- relief as it applies to their particular establishment or a general revision
of the ordinance.
Councilman Pebley referred to the many better restaurants within the
City of Anaheim in a similar situation as the Jolly Ox, being unable to obtain
and operate under a Dinner -Dancing Place permit unless they devote 300 square
feet of floor space for dancing. In his personal experience, he felt this
might be an excessive requirement, particularly inview of the current costs
of land and construction. He stated that he felt a smaller dance floor would
74-104
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M
suffice, particularly when the restaurant provides just piano or organ music,
and further that he felt the proprietor of the establishment to be thoroughly
capable of determininghow much dance space is necessary in his operation. He
suggested that it is time for Council to review the ordinance. He pointed out
that other cities in Orange County do not have a dance floor size restriction
such as this.
Councilman Stephenson explained that the intent of the minimum dance
floor size is to preclude the possibility of smaller cocktail and beer bars from
qualifying for such a permit. He advised that if many of these smaller estab-
lishments were able to qualify for Dinner -Dancing Place permits, this would un-
doubtedly create a great deal of difficulty for the Police Department since they
already experience many problems with arguments and disorderly conduct in these
places. He advised that he would not be in favor of reducing any restriction
which would allow many more beer and cocktail bars to obtain a Dinner -Dancing
Place permit since, in his experience,this encourages and creates more aggressive
behavior on the part of the patrons, resulting in a law enforcement problem.
For this reason,he felt the requirement should remain and that no dinner -dancing
be permitted on less than a 300 -square foot dance floor.
Councilman Pebley was of the opinion that the type of clientele and
manner in which the better establishments are managed would permit them to oper-
ate with a smaller dance floor without any resultant increase in difficulties
and felt that this privilege should be available to them by perhaps a variance
procedure. In this manner,the Council would review the proposal and grant the
permit or not at its discretion.
Deputy City Attorney Lowry advised that if Council desires to make
Dinner -Dancing Place permits available by variance procedure, then it would be
necessary to transfer the section of the Code regarding said permits to Title 18
of the Zoning Code. He added that police enforcement sections of the Code are
not usually included in the zoning section, but it is possible to handle it in
this manner.
Councilman Sneegas observed that it would be difficult to evaluate the
applications for Dinner -Dancing Place permits by a variance procedure and to
determine which of these would not create a problem for the Police Department.
He remarked that he for one would not want to be placed in the position of making
such determinations.
Councilman Stephenson pointed out that the 300 -square foot minimum
dance floor requirement does tend to regulate the nature of the establishment
in which dancing is permitted to some extent.
Mr. Wally Dulen, Area Supervisor for Southern California, Jolly Ox
Restaurants, stated that the intention of their operation is to serve the com-
munity as a fine restaurant and also to provide entertainment. He reported that
they had removed their dance floor to comply with the ordinance and that this has
caused them to lose $500 per week in business. Further he advised that without
the 300 -square foot dancing area,they are able to seat 68 people in the cocktail
lounge,whereas with the required minimum dance floor, they can .seat only 18 to
20 persons. He advised that this almost makes it prohibitive for them to operate
the cocktail lounge with dinnerudancing. He informed Council that his firm oper-
ates 70 restaurants throughout the United States and has experienced no undue
problems with fights or disorders. He noted that they cater to a family -type
clientele and any such difficulties would undoubtedly be detrimental to their
business and they would certainly.take action to alleviate the situation.
Councilman Pebley asked Mr. Dulen whether any of their other restaurants
operate with dance floors smaller than 300 square feet.
Mr. Dulen advised that their Huntington Beach restaurant has a 9 by 11 -
foot dance floor which amounts to 130 square feet. In regard to determining the
size or type of restaurant eligible to receive a Dinner -Dancing Place permit, Mr.
Dulen suggested that Council use a formula under which a certain percentage of the
dollar volume of said establishment must be derived from sale of food.
74-105
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Sneegas advised Mr. Dulen that the Order to Show Cause
issued against his establishment was not due to the type of clientele or because
the Council felt that problems would ensue at his particular establishment be-
cause of the smaller dance floor, but rather because the Council was concerned
about impartial enforcement of the ordinance throughout the City.
Councilman Sneegas further observed from his past experience with the
Anaheim Police Department that the dinner restaurants do not have the fights
and disturbances which occur at smaller beer bar and cocktail lounge type of
operations in such frequency,but a major portion of patrolmen's time on
night duty is spent investigating this sort of complaint.
Councilman Dutton prefaced his comments by indicating that he did
not feel there was any conflict of interest involved in his discussion of the
matter. He related that he was instrumental in implementing the Dinner -Dance
Place permits and the formula which was devised at that time was the 300 -square
foot dance floor. He commented that there is a notable difference between a
beer bar and a bona fide dinner house. He was of the opinion that if exces-
sive problems occur. as a result of the issuance of a Dinner -Dancing Place per-
mit by the Council, it could always be revoked.
Councilman Thom advised that evidence regarding disturbances in bars
would be difficult to substantiate in court.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the solution to the problem may lie in
establishing a series of criteria which define a "dinner house" as opposed to
the other type of operation. He stated that perhaps a certain percentage of
the gross business receipts being derived from the sale of food might be one
appropriate criterion.
Councilman Pebley suggested another requirement be that the
establishment have a separate dining room.
Mr. Murdoch inquired whether Council would like the City Attorney's
�— Office to review the situation and attempt to come up with some criteria to
define a dinner house and establish those which would be eligible for Dinner -
Dancing Place permits by other than the 300 -square foot dance floor provision.
The Council indicated their concurrence.
Detective Tisbo of the Anaheim Police Department related that the
below minimum size dance floor at the Jolly Ox Restaurant was brought to their
attention by the proprietor of another establishment who was in the process of
applying for his Dinner -Dancing Place permit. Detective Tisbo advised that he
did not think 300 square feet an excessive amount of space to require for a
permit and that most restaurants, once they have obtained the Dinner -Dance
Place permit, find that they actually need the 300 square feet. He remarked
that in his opinion Anaheim is one of the finest and cleanest cities,law en-
forcement-wise,due to some of these ordinances.
Councilman Stephenson asked Detective Tisbo if he thought a reduction
in the required amount of floor space to become eligible for Dinner -Dancing
Place permit would pose additional problems for the Police Department.
Detective Tisbo replied that if the effect of this reduction were to
make more of the smaller places, which could comply with the Code by having a
"stand-up" menu on the wall, eligible for such permit, then he would anticipate
multiple problems from these locations.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council authorized removal of the Order to Show Cause issued against
the Jolly Ox Restaurant, 950 South Ox Road from the Council Agenda and directed
the City Attorney to draft criteria which would define a dinner house eligible
for Dinner -Dancing Place permit. MOTION CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: Applications filed by John H. Duensin,g, Music Systems
Company for various amusement devices permits at the following locations were
submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the Anaheim
74-106
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson:
a. Sam's, 735 North Anaheim Boulevard for one coin operated phono-
graph; one coin operated amusement device.
b. The Penny Arcade, 1158 North East Street for approximately 30
various amusement device machines.
c. Tweed's Pub, 1700 South Claudina Street, for one coin operated
phonograph; two coin operated amusement machine devices.
MOTION CARRIED.
POOL ROOM PERMIT: Application filed by Nicholas John and Elizabeth Jane Marsicano
for Pool Room Permit to allow 16 pool tables at Linbrook Family Billiards, 2220
West Lincoln Avenue,was submitted,and granted,subject to the provisions of
Chapter 3.28 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police,
on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST REGARDING 35 -FOOT SPECIAL SETBACK ZONE - LINCOLN AVENUE (LOUIS GOODMAN INVEST-
MENTS AND ABBEY RENTS): Communications received from Mr. Isador I. Smuckler, Attorney
for Abbey Rents, dated January 10, 1974, and Louis Goodman Investments, dated
January 2, 1974, requesting permission to discuss with Council the problem of
mobile homes being parked within the 35 -foot setback along Lincoln Avenue on prop-
erty adjacent the east property line of 1681 West Lincoln Avenue,which impair the
view of the Abbey Rents' structure and window display from westbound traffic caus-
ing serious financial damage to their business, were submitted together with
photographs taken from various angles showing the vehicles most offensive to
the Abbey Rents' property.
Councilman Stephenson advised that he personally had inspected subject
property this date and felt that the Abbey Rents' sign, which is very large and
displayed at considerable height, would provide sufficient notice of the Abbey
Rents' structure to anyone driving on either side of the street.
Councilman Sneegas noted that a mobile home would not be permitted
within the 35 -foot setback whereas a recreational vehicle would be allowed and
inquired whether there is some definition which differentiates a mobile home
from a recreational vehicle.
Mr. Frank Lowry, Jr., Deputy City Attorney, advised that the definition
is provided by the State Vehicle Code which indicates that a recreational vehicle
is a licensed vehicle whereas a mobile home is not. The 35 -foot special setback
on Lincoln Avenue applies to structures,and mobile homes are classified as such,
but recreational vehicles are not. He stated that the property adjacent to Abbey
Rents on which the recreational vehicle sales operation is being conducted is
developed to C-3 standards,and the current use is entirely in accordance with the
legal definition of C-3 uses.
Mr. Isador Smuckler, Counsel for Abbey Rents, advised that the motor
home indicated in the photographs, which was parked immediately adjacent to the
lot line dividing the two properties, and which was the one vehicle which they
found particularly offensive, was removed recently and a small yacht set in its
place. He related that the 60 -foot mobile home which extends out to the sidewalk
property line and almost back to the building was previously parked in this spot
for the past several weeks. That mobile home was high enough and long enough to
obliterate any view of the Abbey Rents' structure from -east to west on Lincoln
Avenue. Although Mr. Smuckler indicated it is true that vehicles could still
view the sign projected above the property, he did not feel this to be as effec-
tive an advertisement as the building and window display itself. Mr. Smuckler
indicated that the replacement of the mobile home with the smaller boat has par-
tially alleviated the problem, however, in front of the boat,the McCoy Ford
recreational vehicle people have located a trailer with a sign which is approxi-
mately four to five feet high and seven to eight feet wide which also partially
blocks his building.
74-107
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M,
Mr. Smuckler explained that Abbey Rents considers it important to
their business to maintain a store and showroom in a good retail location with
good exposure and consequently pay higher rents for their locations. He advised
that he could not understand why, if the Abbey Rents' property is required to
observe and maintain a 35 -foot setback, the same requirement is not also imposed
on the neighboring property. He related attempts made by himself and Mr.
Goodman to reason with the manager of the property at McCoy Ford Recreational
Vehicles to resolve the problem. Specifically, they had requested he move
just the one particularly large and offensive motor home parked adjacent to
the lot line, without any success.
Mr. Lowry reiterated that the special setback requirement applies to
structures and not to vehicles. He emphasized that the Council has no control
over the parking of vehicles within the 35 -foot setback on Lincoln Avenue pur-
suant to Resolution No. 5453.
Mr. Smuckler contended that a mobile home which is permanently parked
and takes the place of a structure could be construed as a structure and there-
fore the 35 -foot setback would apply.
The photographs which were submitted by Messrs. Goodman and Smuckler
were reviewed by the City Council and Councilman Sneegas pointed out that the
vehicle illustrated therein would have to be considered a motor home since it
is motorized and shows a driver's compartment.
Mr. Goodman of Louis Goodman Investments addressed the Council and
remarked that no furniture or other retail businesses would be permitted to
place merchandise out to the property lines as these recreational vehicles are
displayed. He related that his lessee, Abbey Rents, will undoubtedly not re-
new their agreement because of this inadequate exposure situation and this will
cause him financial difficulties. He felt it would be more equitable if all
businesses were made to comply to the setback requirement.
Councilman Pebley expressed empathy for Mr. Goodman's situation,
however he noted that if the recreational vehicles sales lot were made to com-
ply, then all other new and used automobile and recreational vehicle dealers
throughout the City would also have to discontinue parking their vehicles out
to the lot line, and this would cause numerous difficulties for the City.
Mr. Goodman emphasized that other businesses may have five -or ten -
foot maximum setbacks,whereas he has complied with a special 35 -foot setback
on Lincoln Avenue. He remarked that Abbey Rents spends considerable money on
their window displays,and they feel this exposure is an important portion of
their promotional program. Further,he commented that this structure was built
in 1961, whereas the recreational vehicle sales facility was developed just
one and one-half years ago, so that there was no way they could have anticipated
this problem when constructing their building.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Dutton suggested that
perhaps the ordinance be reviewed to determine whether visual intrusion due to
the excessive height of the recreational vehicles in the 35 -foot setback could
be implemented in some manner as to afford the Abbey Rents' property some re-
lief. The remainder of Council was agreeable to such review, however,
Councilman Pebley pointed out that additional problems could be anticipated if
such height restriction applied to trucks.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
WAIVER OF REVISED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE CONDITION - TRACT No. 8101: Request
of Horst J. Schor, Anaheim Hills, Inc., dated January 22, 1974 regarding a
waiver of Condition No. 6 imposed by Council on November 7, 1972 on approval
of Tentative Tract Map No. 8101 was submitted. Said tract consists of approxi-
mately 121 proposed R-2 zoned lots, located at the poutheast corner of Serrano
Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road. Developer - Hallcraft Homes, Inc.
Also submitted was report from the City Engineer dated January 29,
1974, recommending that said waiver be granted on condition that grading
within subject tract not commence until grading plans are approved by the
City Engineer.
74-108
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Maddox further reported that this particular tract has been rough
graded on three separate pads for over one year. All of the downstream drainage
facilities serving this tract have been installed,with the exception of approxi-
mately 900 feet which the Applicant is requesting to install prior to development
of this particular tract.
The grading which is requested to be allowed prior to construction of
the storm drain consists of approximately 3,000 yards of fine grading to create
slightly different pads than now exist and to rough grade the streets. Mr.
Maddox felt that this proposed grading would not be detrimental to the situation,
and therefore recommended that the Standard Condition No. 45 be waived, subject
to his approval of the grading plans.
Councilman Thom requested that the condition recommended by the City
Engineer designate "fine" grading rather than grading per se, with which Mr.
Maddox concurred.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the
requested waiver of the Revised Hillside Development Drainage Condition (Condi-
tion No. 6 of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 8101) was granted,subject to
the condition recommended by the City Engineer, as amended, which reads:
"That subject waiver be approved with the condition that fine grading
within subject tract not commence until fine grading plans are approved by the
City Engineer."
MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 8101 AND REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO SECTION 17.06.110 AND 17.06.120
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1350): Request for waiver of condition requiring that
property lines shall be a minimum of one foot back of the top of the slopes and
action on approval of Final Map, Tract No. 8101,was continued to the meeting of
February 5, 1974, as requested by the developer (per Gordon Wells, Officer of
Hallcraft Homes, Inc., who was present at the meeting and verbally requested said
continuance),on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton.
MOTION CARRIED.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS: The
revised guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report,
Environmental Impact Report Process Flow Chart and Environmental Impact Infor-
mation Statement were submitted,together with a report from Development Services
Department evaluating said revisions and recommending that said documents sub-
mitted be adopted by the City Council to replace the forms now in use.
Mr. Ronald Thompson, Assistant Director of Development Services, re-
ported that the State of California has adopted new regulations regarding the
Environmental Impact Report Process which will become effective February 15,
1974. The six areas of change which will drastically alter some of the City's
current procedures were outlined in the memorandum dated January 29, 1974 -and
discussed briefly by Mr. Thompson as follows:
I. An Environmental Impact Report must now reflect the independent
judgment of the public agency prior to the time it is released for public review.
II. An initial study must now be conducted prior to the preparation of
a Negative Declaration and said Declaration must contain a finding that the pro-
ject will not have a significant effect on the environment and a brief statement
of the reason supporting said finding, together with a statement indicating who
prepared the initial study and where a copy may be obtained.
Mr. Thompson indicated that this requirement will result in a major
change from current procedure and considerably more staff work. He stated that
the Development Services Department is going to make every effort to implement
this new procedure with existing personnel.
III. The State of California Guidelines require a minimum of 30 days
from the time that the R.I.R. or Negative Declaration is released for public re-
view and the final decision on the project. This time frame is specified to
provide adequate opportunity for public review and comment and will necessitate
74-109
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
that E._I.R.Isor Negative Declarations be made public 8 days prior to con-
sideration of the zoning action by the City Planning Commission, so that the
Council may continue to review the Planning Commission action or take action
of its own on the 22nd day. Mr. Thompson advised that implementation of this
revision will involve some major procedural and scheduling changes.
IV. There is now a requirement for certification that the final E.I.R.
has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and the State Guidelines, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered
the information contained therein. This certification is proposed to be accom-
plished by the City Clerk.
V. If the Council decides to approve a project for which serious
environmental_ consequences have been identified in the E.I.R., it may make a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, identifying the other interests which
warrant approval.
Mr. Thompson indicated that Item No. V will possibly involve addi-
tional findings made by the City Council,and it has not yet been determined
whether this should be in the form of minute motion or resolution, but every
effort will be made to process these in the most expeditious manner.
VI. The list of items for consideration in connection with the growth -
inducing impact of a project has been deleted since the given examples would
not necessarily apply to any specific project. This deletion of a portion of
current Guidelines will bring them into conformance with State requirements
without any particular change in procedure.
Mr. Murdoch noted that action on revision of the E.I.R. Guidelines
was taken by the State Legislature subsequent to adoption of Senate Bill 390,
however, he has not yet received any information regarding a provision for addi-
tional funds from the State to finance these administrative changes and addi-
tional procedures. He inquired whether these would fall under the provisions
of Senate Bill 390.
Mr. Lowry advised that in the last paragraph of the mandated State
Guidelines, the Secretary of Resources has made a determination that these
revisions call for no State -mandated local costs because this regulation imple-
ments a mandate previously enacted by statute (said statute previously adopted
in 1972) .
Mr. Murdoch took exception to the disclaimer as quoted by Mr. Lowry,
noting that these additional administrative procedures will take more staff
time which equals additional cost. In particular,he referred to Item No. II
above described which will require a substantial increase in work for Develop-
ment Services staff and which appears to him to have no substantial purpose or
use,except that it will create additional paper work and take additional time.
Councilman Thom suggested that a fee schedule for E.I.R.'s be con-
sidered to off -set the increased costs of the administrative process.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman St phenson,
the City Council deferred action on adoption of the proposed revised Guidelines
to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Impact
Report Process Flow Chart and Environmental Impact Information Statement for
one week to allow additional time for investigation of the means to defray the
increased administrative costs. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilman Sneegas seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present.
(3:50 P.M.)
ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER PHASE NO. I - PRELIMINARY PIANS, OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS AND
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST OF CONSTRUCTION: Preliminary plans for Phase No. I con-
struction of the Anaheim Civic Center, prepared by Dan Rowland and Associates,
Inc., and LeRoy Rose and Associates, were submitted and reviewed at Council
Table.
74-110
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Manager pointed out that the next three steps which are nec-
cessary in the process of development of the Civic Center would be to approve
the preliminary estimate of -probable cost of construction, on which the archi-
tect's fee will be based; to accept the preliminary plans for Phase No. I con-
struction; and to authorize the architect to proceed with plans for Phase No. II.
Mr. Randy Bosch, representative of the joint venture architects briefly
summarized the differences between the cost estimates submitted November 15,
1973,and January 15, 1974,which bring the total estimate to $1,565,760. Specifi-
cally, the original estimates were increased due to additional Building Committee
requirements; i.e., dumb waiter, more interior space development, in addition to
what was recommended by S.U.A., emergency generator for the first phase, slight
expansion of restroom facilities, intersection ties for reinforcing steel and
additional drinking fountains. He noted also that more specific information and
details are now available and therefore the cost estimates more accurate. In
addition,the City Engineer had requested that the costs for demolition of the
existing structures, construction of the cul-de-sac and modification for parking
to complete Phase No. I be included in this figure as well.
In answer to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Bosch explained that the dumb
waiter was included at the request of the City Building Committee and would pro-
vide a method for transporting plans and records from the central records area
to Development Services Department and Public Works, thereby saving time and
space.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
City Council approved the preliminary plans and outline specifications as sub-
mitted and authorized the architects to proceed with construction documents to
be completed by May 20, 1974. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the $1,565,760 figure recommended to be
set as the cost estimate, while it does include those items specified by Mr.
Bosch, does not include the cost of land nor the architects' fee.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the cost
estimate for Phase No. I, Civic Center Project, was established at $1,565,760.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the City Council authorized the architects,Dan L. Rowland and Associates, Inc.,
and LeRoy Rose and Associates, to proceed with plans for Phase No. II, Anaheim
Civic Center.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Stephenson inquired whether the bond question was still
being considered for the April 9th ballot.
Mr. Davis reported that the Civic Center Task Force acted on this
proposal at their last meeting and plans to make a presentation to the Redevelop-
ment Commission at their forthcoming meeting after which the joint recommendation
of these bodies will be presented to the City Council. The bond election for
the Civic Center is being proposed for the June Primary ballot, as the deadline
for placing this issue on the April ballot has already_.passed.
Mr. Murdoch recalled that the last time bond financing for construction
of the Civic Center was discussed, the Council was interested not only in gen-
eral obligation bonds, but also a. joint financing arrangement with the Redevelop -
meet Agency. He noted that one of the major reasons for consideration of the
Civic Center Project is because of its anticipated impact on the redevelopment
program. A financing arrangement would be possible under the Joint Powers Act
which would not legally require an election, but would be subject to a referendum
period. In this instance,however,since it is a major financing project, he felt
that most likely Council would want to submit the issue to the voters.
Councilman Thom suggested that several methods of financing be proposed
and placed on the ballot and the decision left to the electorate.
74-111
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1.30 P.M.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that each proposed method shown on the ballot
would legally have to be proposed as a "yes" or "no" situation which might re-
sult in the voters selecting more than one method of financing or approving
none at all. He recommended that the Council determine whether they wish to
propose a general obligation bond issue or revenue bond issue jointly with the
Redevelopment Agency prior to placing this issue before the voters.
In answer to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Murdoch advised that the most
economical method as far as the taxpayer is concerned would be general obliga-
tion bonds, but he admonished that these will not accomplish the entire objec-
tive if the Council is considering this a redevelopment project to include not
just the immediate building site but the surrounding properties as well.
He recalled that the 1968 ballot did show considerable support for
a City Hall at this location due to its probable impact on the core of the
City. If these two projects, Civic Center and Redevelopment,are not considered
separate, the way to finance them is through revenue bond financing so that
one compliments the other. This could be accomplished with revenue bond fin-
ancing under the Joint Powers Act. He reiterated that this would not require
an election but since it is a major capital improvement, the Council would most
likely want to submit the decision to the voters. The actual financing would
be established by a simple majority.
Council indicated that they also felt the two projects inseparable,
and Mr. Murdoch outlined the possible scope of the project and alternatives
available with particular reference to the parking facility.
Mr. Murdoch advised that if Council wishes to proceed on the assump-
tion that this will be a joint redevelopment project, the earliest time the
matter could be placed on the ballot would be in the June Primary.
Councilman Stephenson expressed the opinion that every effort should
be made to have this issue on that ballot.
Councilman Pebley remarked that he felt the matter should have been
on the forthcoming April ballot.
Mr. Murdoch stated that from staff viewpoint there was some hesitancy
to recommend that the Council have the issue on the April ballot in view of
the fact that if Council is considering a bond program to go forward with the
entire Civic Center Project,together with acquisition of some land for redevel-
opment, you are speaking in terms of an annual obligation in excess of one and
one-half million dollars on a thirty-year basis. He remarked that he could not
advise at this moment whether or not the City can handle such obligation.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held January 7, 1974, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council information and consideration:
1. VARIANCE NO. 2571 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION STATUS: Appli-
cation by Michael and Geraldine Farnady for the following Code waivers to per-
mit a mobile home on an R -A zoned strip of land in conjunction with an existing
single-family residence located at 6872 Via Sola Circle in the City of Buena
Park, was submitted together with application for Exemption Declaration Status
from filing of an environmental impact report:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Minimum lot area.
c. Minimum lot width.
d. Minimum floor area.
e. Maximum building height.
f. Minimum sideyard setback.
g. Required off-street parking.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-4,
denied said variance and made no recommendation regarding the environmental
74-112
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
impact report Exemption Declaraticn request, determining that any environmental
impact occuring subsequent to approval would occur within the jurisdiction of
the City of Buena Park.
The City Council took no action on Variance No. 2571 and application
for Environmental Impact Report Exemption Status submitted therewith.
2; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION STATUS: As recommended by the City
Planning Commission, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Stephenson, it was the finding of the City Council that the impact of the project
in the following zoning applications would be trivial in nature,and that no
environmental impact reports or statements be required:
Variance No. 2572
Conditional Use Permit No. 1438
Conditional Use Permit No. 1447
MOTION CARRIED.
3. VARIANCE NO. 2572: Submitted by Lawrence Gallegos to expand an existing
nonconforming therapy and massage parlor on C-1 zoned property located at 2100
West Ball Road, on the southwest corner of Ball Road and Empire Street, with
waivers of:
a. Nonconforming buildings in a "C" Zone.
b. Limited commercial use of a residential structure. (Withdrawn)
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-5,
granted said variance in part, subject to conditions.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1438: Submitted by Frank Lunetta, to allow con-
tinuance of an existing outdoor storage of repossessed vehicles in the M-1 Zone,
on property located on the west side of North Lemon Street, north of Romneya
Drive, requested Code waivers being:
a. Minimum front setback landscaping adjacent to a secondary arterial
highway. (Withdrawn)
b. Enclosure of outdoor uses.
c. Off-street parking for outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-1,
granted said conditional use permit in part, granting waiver "b" in part only,
subject to conditions.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1447: Submitted by Clifford H. Hemmerling to
establish an automobile sales agency and service facility on C-1 zoned property,
located on the west side of Euclid Street, south of Lincoln Avenue, with waivers
of:
a.
Minimum number of off-street parking spaces. (Withdrawn)
b.
Maximum number of free-standing signs.
c.
Minimum distance between free-standing signs.
d.
Minimum sign height. (Withdrawn)
e.
Maximum sign height. (Withdrawn)
f.
Permitted location of free-standing signs.
g.
Minimum required parking area landscaping. (Withdrawn)
h.
Maximum free-standing aggregate area of signs. (Withdrawn)
The
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-2,
granted said
conditional use permit in part, granting waivers "b", "c" and "f",
subject to conditions, the Applicant having stipulated to withdrawal of waivers
"a", "d", "e",
"g" and "h".
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1448 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION
STATUS: Application by Alfred L. Caruso, M. D., to establish an ambulance ser-
vice in an existing medical building on C-1 zoned property, located at 1491 East
La Palma Avenue, northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street, was sub-
mitted together with application for Exemption Declaration Status from filing of
an environmental impact report.
74-113
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1.30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-3,
denied said conditional use permit and made no recommendation on the environ-
mental impact report Exemption Status, having deemed denial of the conditional
use permit as disapproval of request for Exemption Declaration Status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 2466 - EXTENSIO.N OF TIME: Submitted by Lester A. Holmes,
Kiely Corporation, requesting a one-year extension of time to complete condi-
tions of approval for the establishment of a professional office complex in an
industrial zone. M-1 zoned property is located on the south side of Katella
Avenue, east of State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission,by motion,granted a one-year extension
of time to Variance No. 2466, to expire January 8, 1975.
The foregoing application were reviewed by the City Council and no
further action taken.
8. REQUEST - WAIVER OF WALL CONDITION, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70-44, CONDI-
TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1145: Request submitted by LeRoy Rose and Associates for
waiver of six-foot masonry wall adjacent to the west and south property lines
of Canyon General Hospital (as required by Conditional Use Permit No. 1145,
Condition No. 11) and waiver of the six-foot masonry wall along the west pro-
perty line of the medical center property (as required under Reclassification
No. 69-70-44, Condition No. 8). The C-0 (SC) zoned property is located on the
north side of Riverdale Avenue, west of Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission,by motion, determined that suitable bond
for installation of the required six-foot masonry wall along the west property
line would be in substantial compliance with the wall requirement of Reclassif-
ication No. 69-70-44, Condition No. 8,and Conditional Use Permit No. 1145,
Condition No. 11, pending disposition of the property to the west; said bond
to be held until either the City acquires said property or the wall is installed.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
City Council concurred with and sustained the action of the Planning Commission
authorizing that suitable bond be accepted for the required six-foot masonry
wall along the west property line. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 8511, REVISION NO. 1 (E.I.R. NO. 107, RECLASSIFICATION NO.
73-74-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 2565): Owner, State of California; property located north-
westerly of the Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway intersection; contain-
ing seven proposed R-2 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, action
on Tentative Map, Tract No. 8511, Revision No. 1 was continued to be considered
in conjunction with E.I.R. No. 107, Reclassification No. 73-74-27 and Variance
No. 2565. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAPS, TRACT NOS. 8455 AND 8456 (E.I.R. N0. 108 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 1436): Owner, Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc.; property located
on the north and south sides of Canyon Rim Road, east of Nohl Ranch Road and
contain:
Tract No. 8455 - 73 proposed R-2 zoned lots.
Tract No. 8456 - 49 proposed R-2 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, action
on Tentative Maps, Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456swas-continued to be considered in
conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 108 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 1436. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 8533, REVISION N0. 1 (E.I.R. NO. 109, RECLASSIFICATION NO.
73-74-30 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1439): Owner, Robert H. Grant Corporation;
property located on the north and south sides of Nohl Ranch Road, westerly of
the Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road intersection; containing 173 proposed
R-2 zoned lots.
74-114
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, action
on Tentative Map, Tract No. 8533, Revision No. 1, was continued to be heard in
conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 109, Reclassification No.
73-74-30 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1439. MOTION CARRIED.
PETITION FOR REHEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NOS.. 8513, 8514, 8515, 8516, E.I.R. No. 105,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1430 AND 1431: Petition for rehearing and Affidavit of
Merit dated January 24, 1974, submitted by John C. McCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall
West, Pomona, on behalf of the Orange Unified School District and the Santa Ana
Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., regarding Tentative Tract Nos. 8513, 8514,
8515 and 8516, E.I.R. No. 105 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1430 and 1431, was
submitted for Council consideration. (Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1430 and 1431
were considered in public hearing on January 22, 1974 and granted pursuant to
Resolution Nos. 74R-21 and 74R-22 respectively, Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8513,
8514, 8515 and 8516 were approved, and Environmental Impact Report No. 105
adopted on January 22, 1974.)
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
requested rehearing was granted, to be scheduled February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR EVENING MEETING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-30 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 1439, E.I.R. No. 109 AND TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 8533, REVISION NO. 1): Com-
munication from Charles A. French, President, Westridge Homeowners' Association,
544 Tumbleweed Road, requesting that the public hearing regarding Reclassifica-
tion No. 73-74-30 be scheduled at an evening meeting,was submitted for Council
consideration.
Councilman Thom moved that the public hearing on Reclassification No.
73-74-30 be held at an evening meeting.
There being no second to this motion, the Mayor declared it dead for
lack of a second, and that public hearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-30
(Conditional Use Permit No. 1439, E.I.R. No. 109 and Tentative Map, Tract No.
8533, Revision No. 1) will be held at the regularly scheduled time of 1:30 P.M.
on February 19, 1974.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE IMPROVEMENT OF DIANE WAY
AT CAROL DRIVE AND DAHLIA DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO.
9188. 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 AUTH-
ORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - February 21,
1974, 2.00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCIIMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-32 duly passed and.adopted.
i
PROPOSED ABANDONMENTS.- RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-33 and 74R-34: Councilman Thom offered
Resolution Nos. 74R-33 and 74R-34 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING
A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON. (No. 73-2A, February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.;
east of Lakeview, north of the Riverside Freeway, within Lot No. 15 of
Tract No. 7370)
74-115
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1.30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING
A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON. (No. 73-6A, February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.;
aboveground portion of existing public utility easement, northerly of
Freedman Way, east of Harbor Boulevard.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-33 and 74R-34 duly passed
and adopted.
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 73-11E: Submitted by Robert J. Emmerson, California Mortgage
Service, requesting a permit for encroachment of existing facilities lying with-
in a portion of newly dedicated alley, located at the east side of Clementine
Street, north of North Street.
Also submitted was report of the City Engineer recommending approval
of said encroachment permit,
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-35: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-35 for
adoption, approving Encroachment Permit.No. 73-11E.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH DAVID H. MITCHELL
AND BETTEE J. MITCHELL. (73-11E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-35 duly passed and adopted.
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 73-13E: Submitted by Warren C. Lefebvre, Magnolia Invest-
ments, proposing to permit a portion of a commercial building to encroach into
an existing public utility easement located at the south side of Cerritos Ave-
nue, east of Euclid Street.
Also submitted was report of the City Engineer recommending approval
of request, subject to the condition that said encroachment will not exceed the
height of 20 feet measured perpendicular to the nature level of the ground.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-36: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-36 for
adoption, approving Encroachment Permit No. 73-13E, subject to the condition
recommended by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH MAGNOLIA INVEST-
MENTS, A PARTNERSHIP. (73-13E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-36 duly passed and adopted.
74-116
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by the City
Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. Claim submitted by William E. Gray for personal injuries purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of the means of ingress and egress for workers at
Flood Control Channel (Chantilly Channel), on or about October 16, 1973.
b. Claim submitted by David Warrington for personal injuries sustained
purportedly as a result of hole beside meter box in parkway, on or about
October 25, 1973.
c. Claim submitted by Rodolfo Escalante for personal property damage
sustained to vehicle purportedly as a result of being hit by a City tractor,
on or about January 2, 1974.
d. Claim submitted by Mr. Gregory R. Baxter for personal property
damage sustained to vehicle purportedly as a result of condition of street, on
or about January 8, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-37 - AGREEMENT WITH AUSTIN D. PEAY: Councilman Sneegas offered
Resolution No. 74R-37 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH AUSTIN D. PEAY, AN
INDIVIDUAL. (Production Coordinator - Recreational Theatre Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCIIMEN: Pebley
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-37 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-38 - PURCHASE OF TAX -DEEDED PROPERTY: On report and recommendation
of the City Manager, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-38 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PUR-
CHASE BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF TAX -DEEDED PROPERTY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-38 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Dutton left the Council Chambers. (4:32 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-39 - CONSENT TO TRANSFER TO THE CITY OF BUENA PARK OF CERTAIN
CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-39 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE
TRANSFER FROM THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO THE CITY OF BUENA PARK OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF BUENA PARK UPON CONSENT OF ALL THE
PROPERTY OWNERS.
1
1
1
74-117
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-39 duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION N0. 74R-40 - AMENDING STREET LIGHTING CONDITION IN VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS
OF INTENT TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY: On report and recommendation of the City
Attorney's Office, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-40 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING A
STANDARD CONDITION CONTAINED IN VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS OF INTENT TO
RECLASSIFY PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Street lighting)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-40 duly passed and
adopted.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson:
a. Greyhound Lines -West - NOTICE - Application No. 54569 filed with
the Public Utilities Commission for an increase of 1.36% in passenger fares.
b. Before the Federal Communications Commission - Request of Theta
Cable of California for a special temporary authority to commence operation of
a cable television system in the Anaheim Hills section of Anaheim, California.
c. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - December 12,
1973.
d. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of December, 1973
for the Electrical Division.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3253: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3253 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-34 - PR, Parcel Nos. 1, 2,
3 and 4.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: None
Councilman Thom requested that the record indicate that his "aye"
vote on Ordinance No. 3253 does not include Parcel No. 2 which describes the
Anaheim Hills Golf Course property.
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3253 -'duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3254: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3254 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
74-118
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-12 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3254 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3255: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3255 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08,
SECTION 17.08.536 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTAB-
LISHING OF A FORMULATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PARK AND RECREA-
TIONAL LAND IN SUBDIVISIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3255 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3256: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3256 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08,
SECTION 17.08.556 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTAB-
LISHING OF A FORMULATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PARK AND RECREA-
TION LAND IN TRAILER PARKS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS, NOT INCLUDING SUB-
DIVISIONS (R-0, R-1, R-2 AND R-3).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3256 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3257: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3257 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.16, AND
REPEALING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.201, AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10, CHAPTER
10.20 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND
DESTRUCTION OF WELLS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3257 duly passed and adopted.
1
1
1
74-119
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST - USE OF ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE - CANYON HIGH SCHOOL: The City Manager
submitted a letter received from Mr. Thomas A. Yim, Athletic Director of Orange
Unified School.District requesting that the Canyon High School be permitted use
of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course for practices and golf matches, together with
recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Director that said request be
approved, subject to the same terms as previously used - $200 per season.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the Canyon High School proposes to use
the course in the mornings and that Mr. Collier has recommended that should
golf carts be used, full charges be made for these.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the City Council authorized the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolu-
tion and agreement, permitting Canyon High School (Orange Unified School Dis-
trict) use of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, as recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Director, on the same terms as previously approved ($200 for the
season). MOTION CARRIED.
ALLOCATION - FEDERAL URBAN "D" FUNDS'.' The City Manager reported on communication
received from Supervisor David L. Baker of the Orange County Board of Super-
visors, advising that $6.0 million in Federal Urban "D" Funds will be
made available to the Orange County area each year through Fiscal Year 1976,
under the Federal Highway Act of 1973.
Mr. Murdoch noted that these.funds are authorized for use in high
traffic volume arterials and public mass transit and that Supervisor Baker is
requesting input from the Council regarding the priority uses to which they
should be committed.
The City Manager read the proposed reply to Supervisor Baker which
indicates that the City Council of the City of Anaheim recommends that Federal
Urban "D" Funds continue to be allocated by the Expanded Arterial Highway
Financing Committee, as was previously implemented for Federal Aid Urban Funds
in 1972. There was ajoint agreement between the County of Orange and League of.
California Cities, Orange County Division, that the fund allocations being
proposed through the A.H.F.P. Committee be expanded to include the Orange
County Transit District and California Department of Transportation.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the draft letter submitted by the City Manager to be addressed to Supervisor
Baker, containing the recommendation hereinabove outlined, was authorized.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Dutton returned to Council Chambers. (4:43 P.M.)
ANAHEIM HILLS'NO. 7 ANNEXATION RESOLUTION N0. 74R-41: Pursuant to authority
granted by the Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 73-16,
Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 74R-41 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED
ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 7 ANNEXATION. (Uninhabited territory - 19.4 acres)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared'Resolution No. 74R-41 duly passed and adopted.
74-120
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Pebley moved to recess to Executive Session.
Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting.to order, all Councilmen being present.
(5:21 P.M.) .
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Dutton seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:22 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCIIMEN: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens
DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION: John J.
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES:
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PERSONNEL SUPERVISOR: David Hill
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
Collier
Ronald Thompson
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman W. J. (Bill) Thom led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION - SERVICE ON PLANNING COMMISSION: The Mayor pre-
sented Certificates of Appreciation in recognition of service on the
Planning Commission to Dan Rowland and Lenzi Allred and to retired
Secretary of the Planning Commission Ann Krebs.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Mr. Frank Campagnoni of the City Personnel
Department introduced 18 new City employees to the City Council.
The Mayor welcomed the new employees to the City team.
.INTRODUCTION - CIVIL DEFENSE MOBILIZATION DESIGNEE: Mr. Paul Hayes, Disaster
Services Coordinator, introduced Major Jim Laughlin, USAFR, who serves
in the capacity of Civil Defense Mobilization Designee to the City of
Anaheim, and advised of his current participation in development of an
information flow system to be used in the event of natural disasters.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held January 8, 1974
were approved on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom 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 Councilmen unless, after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or
resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
1
F1