Loading...
1977/03/08 77-271 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth (entered at 7:30 p.m.) and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. 'Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James D. Ruth CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Kim Saville of St. Michael's Episcopal Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William Kott led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and approved by the City Council: "Burglary Prevention Month" - Month of March, 1977 MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meetings held December 21, 1976 and January 18, 1977, were approved subject to typographical corrections. Council Members Seymour and Roth were 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 reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,331,847.25, in accordance with the 1976-77 Budget, were approved. 150: NAMING OF PARK - CANYON SITE I: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Canyon Site I park site at Pinney and Gerda Drives was named "Peralta Canyon Park" as recommended in memorandum dated February 24, 1977, from James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that a thank you letter be sent to the 5th and 6th ' graders of Crescent Elementary School who participated in the naming of the park site. 77-272 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 150: AGREEMENT FOR APPRAISAL - ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC. EQUESTRIAN CENTER: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department and Public Works Department were authorized to negotiate an agree- ment for appraisal of 4.625 acres of land presently under lease to Anaheim Hills Inc., for an Equestrian Center and for two additional parcels contiguous to the Center. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 153: RETIREMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT - 1959 SURVIVOR'S BENEFIT OPTION: Council- woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-157 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 1, 1977, by Personnel Director Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-157: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIRE- MENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth · he Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-157 duly passed and adopted. 123: AGREEMENT FOR TRAINING ANAHEIM POLICE OFFICERS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-158 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated February 24, 1977, by Chief of Police, Harold Bastrup. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-158: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY PATROL, RELATING TO TRAINING CLASSES FOR ANAHEIM POLICE OFFICERS AT THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ACADEMY. (Training Agreement No. 300) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-158 duly passed and adopted. 123: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH qUESTIONED DOCUMENTS EXAMINER: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-159 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 2, 1977, by Police Chief Bastrup. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-159: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BARBARA L. TORRES. (through January 31, 1978) 77-273 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-159 duly passed and adopted. 167: STOP SIGNS - NUTWOOD AND ORANGE AND FALMOUTH AND VENTURA: Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins referred to report dated March 1, 1977, from the City Engineer relative to the stop sign installations at Nutwood Street and Orange Avenue and at Falmouth Avenue and Ventura Street, which report was requested in October, 1976, to gauge the effectiveness of the stop signs that were mandated at that time as a result of appeals made by citizens in both areas. Recommendations made were that all stop signs be removed at both locations and that installation of a traffic sign only on Orange Avenue at the westerly intersection of Nutwood Street be authorized. Mayor Thom stated that although he understood the recommendations made, as well as their technical validity, in the absence of an appeal by the citizenry to remove the signs, he could not act favorably on the request especially since the signs were initially installed in answer to such an appeal by many residents of both areas at public meetings. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, consideration of the removal of stop signs at Nutwood Street and Orange Avenue and at Falmouth Avenue and Ventura Street was continued for one week for a full Council. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: .LOT LINE .ADJUSTMENT~ DUNN PROPERTIES: (west side of Knollwood Circle, north of La Palma Avenue) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-160 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated February 24, 1977, by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-160: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT PARCELS PURSUANT TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT MARKED EXHIBIT "A" AND ATTACHED HERETO ON KNOLLWOOD CIRCLE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution N~. 77R-160 duly passed and adopted. 170: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT~ ALDOR CORPORATION AND GREAT AMERICAN LAND AND HOUSING: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-161 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated February 24, 1977, by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 77-274 City Hali~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-161: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO ADJACENT PARCELS PURSUANT TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT MARKED EXHIBIT "A" AND ATTACHED HERETO ON ROMNEYA DRIVE AND EUCLID STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-161 duly passed and adopted. 108: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT: (Plush Fox) On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, request submitted by Paul Schrieber for reconsideration of a dinner-dancing place permit denied by the City Council on February 22, 1977, for the Plush Fox, 950 Ox Road, was granted and set for March 29, 1977. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 153: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT GRANT PROPOSAL: The subject grant proposal was eontinued from the meeting of February 22, 1977, to allow staff to solicit employee organizations' input, which input was obtained and submitted in writing as part of a report dated March 3, 1977, from Personnel Director McRae. Assistant City Manager Hopkins referred to a request made by the AMEA in their letter dated March 2, 1977, wherein they recommended that employee representation also be included on the Project Committee. Mr. Hopkins pointed out that such participation was not practical or possible under the Grant provisions since the GranC itself sets up the Committee. Also under the Grant provisions, however, the Committee would be required to relate with various employee organizations through the entire project and that was something that would be done. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, authorization to participate in an Intergovernmental Personnel Act Grant Proposal prepared by the Labor Relations Advisory Committee of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities, was granted as recommended by the Personnel Director and concurrence by employee organizations. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EqUIPMENT~ THREE CARGO VANS - BID NO. 3195: On.motion by Council- man Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of Santa Aha Dodge was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $16,623.50, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated March 3, 1977. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPEAL - DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR FIGURE MODEL STUDIO ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT:' (Sunshine Company) Mr. Marvin Cooper, Attorney, 1651 East Fourth Street, Suite 226, Santa Ana, representing William F. and Paula Engle, owners of the Sunshine Company, stated that he was present to request that the City Council grant a permit to operate the business to the petitioners pursuant to their application which was denied upon recommendation of the Anaheim Police Department. He then asked Mr. William Engle to address the Council. 77-275 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. William Engle, 212 North State College Boulevard (business address), 2166 Musial Street, Placentia, (residence) stated that there was a definite and unequivocal dichotomy between his business, the Sunshine Modeling Company, and other modeling studios which had recently proliferated' the area and for which existing legislation was intended. He explained that he had been in business for over three years and his defined objectives as follows were legitimate and in no way clandestine or immoral: to provide a living for his family and himself within a framework, allowing him to develop his skills as an actor, writer and professional model and to supply the amateur photographer with excellent subjects at a reasonable cost. Mr. Engle also stated that his business provided models an excellent avenue by which they could pursue acting careers by providing income on which to survive, a place to work, given the understanding and flexibility and scheduling to go to any interviews necessary, and a free portfolio, without which it was impossible to progress further. He pointed to two current prominent actresses who got their start in modeling. Mr. Cooper referred to resumes he had provided on both Mr. and Mrs. Engle and then briefed the Council on their background and standing in the community. He pointed to letters submitted by respectable business establishments which spoke highly of the petitioners. He also emphasized that for internal controls, Mr. Engle had engaged the services of two companies, PCS (Professional Confidential Services) and CBS television to conduct unannounced investigations of his own business and at his own expense to determine whether or not some of their models might be acting outside the law either by soliciting acts of prostitution or submitting to such acts when solicited. As outlined in the letter from Mr. James McDaniel, Production Supervisor of CBS, long before the legislation adopted by the City went into effect relative to modeling studios, Mr. McDaniel, acting in an undercover capacity and using the p~emises as any customer might, found that one of the models at the Sunshine Company, was guilty of misconduct. Upon being notified of such misconduct by Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Engle discharged the model. Mr. Cooper then spoke to Item No. 4 of the Sunshine Company contract which any. patron must sign when using the modeling services at the studio wherein it indicated that studio management reserved the right to monitor "rap" or photographic sessions in a manner they saw fit for the protection of their models, thereby utilizing actual means of internal control. Mr. Cooper then referred to Anaheim City Ordinance No. 3532, Section 4.31.080, wherein one provision adopted seemed to be mandatory upon the License Collector, indicating that the license shall be granted if all requirements for a figure model studio establishment are met. Mr. Cooper explained that apparently all of the requirements were met as the report and recommendation from the Police Department did not indicate any deficiencies except with respect to a report dated December 2, 1976, from Lt. Wilcox, submitted to City Attorney Hopkins. He stated he took the items in the report and applied each to the ordinance to ascertain on what basis the License Collector could make a recommendation that the permit not be granted. Under the terms of the ordinance, Mr. Cooper indicated that there were three primary grounds for denial: (1) deliberate falsification of the application, (2) conviction of a felony, (3) crimes of moral turpitude, none of which applied to either Mr. or Mrs. Engle; neither had ever even been charged with a crime of moral turpitude, much less convicted. 77-276 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Cooper then cited actions as outlined in the Police report dated December 2, 1976, five of which were ultimately dismissed in court and two of which were zoning violations not attributable to Mr. Engle. There were two cases of arrest and con- viction of two employees involving moral turpitude having taken place on the premises and both of the models involved pled guilty and were immediately terminated when they confessed their guilt to solicitation of prostitution. Mr. Cooper emphasized that only two such cases in over three years was a remarkably low incidence for the type of business involved. In summation, Mr. Cooper stated that a fair reading of the City's ordinance would indicate there was no lawful basis shown upon which a denia~ of the permit could be founded and he contended that the permit should be granted. If there were sub- sequent violations of the law by Mr. Engle or his management people, there were plenty of "teeth" in the legislation to suspend the permit, but a prior ruling not authorizing them to do business when it was not clear that any laws were violated was basically unfair, as they were attempting to conduct their business ~n a pro- fessional basis. Since grounds for denial did not exist, he did not see how the Council could follow the recommendation that the permit be denied. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, appeal from denial of application for a Figure Model Studio Establishment Permit for the Sunshine Company, 212 North State College Boulevard, was denied, thereby sustaining denial of the application. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TRACT NO. 9465 - FINAL SPECIFIC FLOOR PLANS: (Anaheim Hills Inc., developer) On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, approval of final specific plans for a 60-lot, RS-HS-10,O00(SC) subdivision on property located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, west of Serrano Avenue, submitted by Pat Walla, Pacific Coast Builders, Inc., was approved as recommended by the Assistant Planning Direcgor, Zoning, in her memorandum dated March 1, 1977. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommen- dations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Clyde D. Vineyard for damages purportedly sustained as a result of hitting a chuckhole in Nohl Ranch Road between Anaheim Hills 'Road and Imperial Highway on or about February 2, 1977. b. Claim submitted by Duane T. Barnes for damages purportedly sustained as a result of loss of personal property by the Anaheim Police on or about November 22, 1976. 2. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permit was granted subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit to allow a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim Room, from 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., March 26, 1977. (Cuauhtemoc R. Valdiviez, Copi International Inc., We Got It Productions, applicant) 77-277 City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of January 6 and 20, 1977. b. 140: Monthly report for January, 1977 - Library. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of February 16 and 23, 1977. d. 105: Library Board - Minutes of January 17, 1977. e. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of February 8, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-162 THROUGH 77R-165: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 77R-162 through 77R-165, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with re- ports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-162: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIG- NATED BALL-SUNKIST NO. 6 ANNEXATION. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-163: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BROOKHURST COMMUNITY BUILD- ING, SECOND STAGE CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 881; 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 March 31, 1977, 2:00 p.m.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-164: 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: MANZANITA PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 794. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-165: 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: ARBORETUM ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT, S/O QUINTANA DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1262. (John T. Malloy) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-162 through 77R-165, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 77-278 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held February 14, 1977, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized the actions pertaining to the following Environmental Impact Require- ments as recommended by the City Planning Commission and took no further action on the following applications (Item Nos. 1 through 8) 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: T~.e Planning Director has determined that the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applica- tions fall within the definitions of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR: Variance No. 2891 Variance No. 2903 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the subject projects in the following listed zoning applications be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: Variance No. 2904 Conditional Use Permit No. 1686 3. VARIANCE NO. 2891: Submitted by Peniche Enterprises, Inc., dba The Bar Stone Company, to permit outdoor wood storage on ML zoned property located at 1051 North Grove Street with certain code waivers. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-37 denied Variance No. 2891. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2903: Submitted by Melvin E. and Marcia L. Jackman and Donald W. Liebhart, to establish a dental office on RS-10,000 zoned property located at 946 N. West Street with waiver of permitted uses. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-40 denied Variance No. 2903. 5. VARIANCE NO. 2904: Submitted by Fannie Gould, to construct a 7-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located on the west side of Bush Street, north of Cypress Street with code waiver of minimum structural setback. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-41 granted Variance No. 2904. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1686: Submitted by the Phoenix Club, Inc., to expand a private club on ML and RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1566 Douglass Road. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-42 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1686. 7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 67-68-14, ZONE CLARIFICATION: Submitted by Jerry Stanley, Guardian Financial Corporation, requesting clarification of permitted CL-HS(SC) uses to determine whether a real estate office would be permitted on property located at the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Villa Real Drive. 77-279 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission determined the proposed real estate office would be a permitted use. 8. CONFORMANCE WITH ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN - PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (EMA): Submitted by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency requesting a determination whether the proposed flood control and drainage improve- ments along La Palma Avenue from Acacia Street to the Carbon Canyon Creek Channel are in conformance with Anaheim's General Plan. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-45 determined that the proposed flood control and drainage improvements were in conformance with Anaheim's General Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 170: VARIANCE NO. 2906 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9482: Submitted by Jack N. and Dorothy D. Hall, et al, for a 16-lot, RS-7200 subdivision on property located at the southwest corner of Riverdale and Lakeview Avenue with a waiver of require- ment that all lots rear on arterial highways. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-36, recommended that the subject property be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ- mental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental' Quality Act, and, granted Variance No. 2906, with the recommendation that Council Policy No. 538 be waived. No action was taken by the Council on said Variance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will-have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the proposed subdivision, Tentative Map, Tract No. 9482, together with its design and improve- ment was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved said Tentative Map subject to the following conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 9482 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 67-68-13 and approval of Variance No. 2906. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the north property line separating Lot Nos. 1 and 16 from Riverdale Avenue and on the east property line separating Lot Nos. 15 and 16 from Lakeview Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; and following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said land- scaping. 77-280 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the OffiCe of the Orange County Recorder. 6. That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restric- tions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 7. That street names shall be approved by the City Plannin~ Department prior to approval of a final tract map. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay-to the C~ty of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 10. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 11. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged, as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire D~partment, prior to commencement of structural framing. 12. That sound-attenuation measures adjacent to Lakeview Avenue and the Riverside Freeway shall be provided in accordance with Council Policy No. 542. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2859 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Alfred D. Paino, requesting termination of Variance No. 2859 to erect a roof-mounted sign on property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, south of Orange Avenue. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-44 terminated Variance No. 2859.. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-166 for adoption terminating Variance No. 2859. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2859. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL .MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-166 duly passed and adopted. 77-281 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1333 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Herman H. Basler, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1333 to expand an existing convalescent hospital on property located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, north of Vermont Avenue. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-43 terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1333. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-167 for adoption terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 1333. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-167: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1333. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom None Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-167 duly passed and adopted. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9524 - REQUEST TO AMEND STREET GRADE CONDITION: Barry Bender, Toups Corporation, requesting a condition of approval be amended to permit street grades to a maximum of 15% for Tract No. 9524 to establish a 49-1ot RS-HS-22,000 (SC) subdivision on property located north of Via Arboles, east of Anaheim Hills Road. (Oaktree Development Company, developer) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, an amendment to Condition No. 12 of Tentative Tract No. 9524 was approved as recommended by the City Planning Commission, to read as follows: "12. The maximum street grade allowable shall not' exceed 12% except as indicated on Exhibit A where the.grade may be a maximum of 15%." (on file in the Planning Department) Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3662: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3662 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3662: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3558, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-16) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Roth The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3662 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3663 AND 3664: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3663 and 3664 for first reading. 77-282 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3663: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-18, ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3664: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-26, PR) 114: GROUND-BREAKING CEREMONY: Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she had attended ground-breaking ceremonies on Wednesday, March 2, 1977, of the Carl Karcher Enterprises Distribution Center, which Center added a $5 million structure to the City. 148: ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING: Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that because of the SCAG meeting she would be unable to attend the ThursdaY, March 10, 1977, meeting of the Orange County League of Cities. If a representative from the City was going to attend, a vote was necessary on the resolution supporting the City of Orange in opposing the sales tax distribution on the basis of popu- lation. If no one was going to attend, the Executive Director of the League was to be notified. 178: WASTE OF WATER: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a Letter to the'Editor in the February 28, 1977, edition of the Anaheim Bulletin indicating there was a waste of water for City park purposes, specifically referring to water running down Coventry Drive to Ball Road 24 hours a day from a street just north of Ball Road. Staff was instructed to investigate the matter. 120: RELOCATION OF UTILITY POLE (STEINKE): Councilman Kott referred to the problem previously presented to the Council on February 15, 1977, (See Council Minutes) wherein Mr. Don Steinke explained the difficulties he was encountering relative to a utility pole on his property for which the City allegedly had no easement. Councilman Kott stated it was his opinion the matter had been settled the previous meeting, but in the interim, Mr. Steinke indicated he was intimidated by staff people in that he would be turned over to OSHA. Councilman Kott asked that a report be given or an explanation as to exactly what problem existed. Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated staff was aware of the complaint and that it was in the process, of being investigated. Councilman Kott stressed that an important issue in the subject case, as well as others, was one of public relation~ and that there had to be a more equitable ~way of resolving such problems without the necessity of threatening governmental power. Mr. Hopkins stated that a report would be submitted on the matter. 114: COUNCIL PAGE: The Mayor recognized and thanked Jerry Fleming, who was serving as Council Page at the meeting, which service was part of his working toward his Eagle Scout Badge. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 142 and Environmental Impact Report No. 195. Council- man Kott seconded the motion. Council Members Seymour and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. (2:20 p.m.) 77-283 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (7:30 P.M.) STAFF MEMBERS: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - PLANNING: Phil Schwartze ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill Cunningham ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill West 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 142 AND EIR NO. 195: To consider amending the Anaheim General Plan in the vicinities of: AREA I - Savanna Street bounded by the Carbon Creek Channel, Knott Street, Pacific Electric Railway for the purpose of changing the land use designation from medium density residential and commercial to medium density and/or low density residential and commercial. AREA II - Lincoln Avenue/Sunkist Street, bounded by Sunkist Street to the east on both sides of Lincoln Avenue for a distance of approximately 670 feet west of the centerline of Sunkist for the purpose of changing the residential to low density residential and/or commercial. AREA III - Canyon Area bounded generally by the Newport Freeway, Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana River, the Orange-Riverside County line, and the ridgeline, to extend the general plan coverage area and to reduce residential densities and land ues intensities. The Gity Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-46, recommended that EIR No. 195 be certified as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and, further, recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 142 in accordance with adoption of Exhibit "D" for Area I, Exhibit "A" for Area II, and Exhibit "2-B" modified for Area III. For the general information of the members of the public present at the meeting, Mr. Phil Schwartze briefly summarized that State law mandates the City's General Plan may be amended only three times per calendar year. These actions do not change the zoning on the property but serve as a general guide to future development. Zone changes would be initiated and public hearings held in accordance with the City's rezoning process. AREA I - SAVANNA STREET: Mr. Cunningham described the general location of Area I. He s-mm~rized that the Planning Commission directed staff to undertake a study of this 29.4-acre area as a result of a request from 20 owners of property fronting on Savanna Street. It was discovered that the General Plan was not consistent with the actual zoning and use of properties in the area. The General Plan currently desig~ nates the area at the intersection of Knott and Ball Road for general commercial with the balance of the property for medium density residential. Of particular concern to property owners on Savanna Street who own single-family residential units issthat the existing non-conforming use, i.e., the keeping of a variety of domestic animals, including horses, be retained and that the rural atmosphere continue. 77-284 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977; 1:30 P.M. Mr. Cunningham described three alternatives (a, b, and c) submitted to the Planning Commission and explained that the Planning Commission adopted and recommended to the Council for adoption an alternative labeled Exhibit "D" which is in conformance with the desires of the property owners fronting on Savanna Street. It provides for continuation of low-medium density residential and for the medium density residential which is actually developed as well as for general commercial along Knott and Ball Road in the manner in which it is actually developed. Mayor Thom opened the public hearing. Mrs. Joan Todd, 3620 Savanna Street, stated that when the current General Plan was adopted, the area surrounding Savanna Street was opened and undeveloped. How- ever, in 1965 with the development of duplexes on Marian Way, a block wall was constructed which removes the possibility of further access to Knott Street. Savanna Street is the only access way to Knott. She explained that multiple-family units have been built at the easterly end of Savanna Street and described the problems these have created including increased traffic on Savanna Street and presented pictures of the receptacles used to place trash for pickup which are left out on Savanna Street. The area residents feel there are too many apartment units built on the lot, that there is not sufficient access for trash trucks to proPerly pick up refuse, and would like to preclude additional such problems from occurring on Savanna Street. They, therefore, urged that the Council adopt the low-medium residential designation which would permit only one to seven units per acre, as recommended by the City Planning Commission, since this would discourage the building of multiple- family apartments with densities of 18 to 36 units per acre. Mayor Thom commented that a low-medium designation would still permit a multiple- family use, and Mrs. Todd stated that she was aware of that but felt that apartments with densities up to 10 units per acre would not create the problems she had described. In addition, Mrs. Todd read and submitted for Council a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Wilbur Stuchal, 3625 Savanna Drive, indicating they would prefer to see the rural character of their street preserved and that they do not wish to see mbre apartment units constructed. Councilman Roth noted from the pictures passed to the Council by Mrs. Todd, that the trash containers are not of the type approved for multiple-residential use, and he requested that City staff check into the reason these are being used instead of the approved trash containers. Mr. Thompson explained that until complete secondary access is developed into the area, the trash trucks have to pick up at curbside. Mr. Tom Hide, 1330 South Eastgates Street, owner of a parcel on Savanna Street, described his recent attempts to develop an apartment building which would have been completely within City site' development standards on his parcel. The only waiver requested was to allow a 2-story building within 150 feet of residemtial property. He felt a low-medium density would be the most compatible designation for the entire area, in that there are already duplexes built to the south of Savanna Street and there are some apartment units as well. 77-285 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Richard Howell of Rutan and Tucker, representing Mr. and Mrs. Winston J. Geiger, 3145 Locust Avenue, Long Beach, owners of a parcel fronting on Savanna Street which is located between the two existing multiple-family units, addressed the Council. Mr. Howell stated that he was surprised that the Planning Commission recommendation did not take into consideration the location of his clients' property, nor the fact that it is surrounded on either side by multiple dwelling units. The Planning Commission recommendation would designate his clients' property to a low- medium residential use in between two medium density projects. He stated that if the General Plan Amendment were adopted in accordance with this recommendation, the City would be creating a non-conforming parcel immediately to the west of his clients' parcel. He suggested instead that the Council consider amending the Planning Commis- sion's recommended exhibit by moving the lines so as to designate a medium density residential land use for the three parcels immediately adjacent to Knott Avenue on the north side of Savanna Street and leave the remainder of the parcels in low-medium residential designation. Mrs. Todd stated that the homeowners would also favor adoption of that plan which would allow the Geigers to develop their property; and further that it should be medium density residential in order to be compatible with the adjacent properties. There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council determined to amend the General Plan for Area I in accordance with City Planning Commission Exhibit "D" modified to include the Geiger property in medium density residential, consistent with the adjoining properties and no further changes, said Exhibit as adopted by the Council to be labeled Exhibit "E". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. AREA II - LINCOLN AVENUE/SUNKIST STREET: Mr. Cunningham reported that this proposed' Amendment to the General Plan was initiated at the request of 8 of the 9 property owners on the' north side of Lincoln Avenue who wish an amendment to change the current designation on that property from low density residential to general commer- cial. The City Planning Commission, in their direction to staff to initiate a study of the area, included the south side of Lincoln Avenue as well,'which is desig- nated for low-medium density residential and a branch library and actually developed with a supermarket. Two alternatives were considered by the City Planning Commission: Exhibit "A" which would provide for single-family low density residential on the north side of Lincoln with general commercialon the south side; and Exhibit "B" which would change both north and south sides of Lincoln Avenue to general commercial. In their recommendation of Exhibit "A", the City Planning Commission also brought to Council's attention some additional items for consideration, these being: (1) a possible consolidation of those parcels on the north side of Lincoln Avenue should the Council see fit to redesignate that portion to general commercial, with restriction of access to a minimum of two driveway cuts. Mr. Cunningham recalled that the segment designated on the current General Plan for a library site was no longer necessary as the new site was acquired and developed at 901 South Sunkist Street. 77-286 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom opened the public hearing on Area II of General Plan Amendment No. 142. Mr. Harold Bastrup, 148 Paradise Lane, stated his opposition to a redesignation of the properties on the north side of Lincoln Avenue to commercial. He cited that the single-family residential tract to the north of the homes facing on Lincoln Avenue was a very desirable, well kept residential section of the City, and that the tenants-owners are all long-term residents who wish their 'neighborhood to remain as it is. The recent development of Ralphs Supermarket on the south side of Lincoln Avenue has impacted this area with additional traffic and noise and he felt an additional commercial use on the north side would further compound the problem. If the east-west alley between the single-family 5omes fronting on Lincoln Avenue and those to the north were used for commercial traffic, he felt the homeowners would lose their privacy. He submitted a petition in opposition to commercial designation of properties to the north of Lincoln Avenue containing approximately 33 signatures of area residents. In conclusion he supported the Planning Commission recommendation for adoption of Exhibit "A". Mr. Bob Carter, 2433 East Lincoln Avenue, stated that he lives in one of the properties in question and that he did not believe the redesignation of these properties would affect the homes to the north as suggested. He remarked that of the 9 to 10 homes which back up to those fronting on Lincoln Avenue, only three have garages on the alley, many others have six- to eight-foot cement block walls' and do not take any access to the alley; in short the alley is rarely used by the homeowners. Mr. Carter recalled that in February, 1976, in conjunction with a proposal to reclassify a portion of subject property to commercial purposes, a study by the City Planning Department indicated that traffic and noise levels on the north side of Lincoln Avenue were significantly higher than wha~.~is a~ceptable for a residential neighborhood and could prove deleterious to the living environment of area residents. At that time, the sound level had been recorded at 85 dba, whereas' 45 to 55 is an acceptable maximum. Mr Carter stressed that since this finding was made, a major supermarket business and freeway on- and off-ramp have added to the traffic at that intersection. Mr. Carter felt that the dust and fumes from existing traffic on Lincoln Avenue was detrimental to his living environment. He called attention to the fact that any commercial proposals for the properties would have to be reviewed prior to zone change; that certainly plans would be submitted which would enhance the appearance of the properties and that most likely the commercial use proposed would have regular day-time working hours. In response to Councilman Roth's question as to whether the property owners have discussed consolidation of the parcels, Mr. Carter stated that they were not sure what commercial use they would make of these properties but felt the structures might be modified and hopefully used for some type of day-time commercial purpose which would be quiet and inoffensive to the homes to the north. Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether a wall for sound attenution purposes in front of the homes, as suggested at the Planning Commission hearing, had been considered, and Mr. Carter stated that this would not be an acceptable solution for him inasmuch as he has walls on three sides of his home now. 77-287 Ci.t~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Paul Holtz, 2232 East Paradise Road, wished to go on record as being in favor of the Planning Commission recommendation. He voiced the opinion that the alley between the homes is too small for commercial purposes. Mrs. Evelyn Brotwell, 110 North Normandy Court, adVised that her family at one time bought a home facing Lincoln Avenue but discovered that conditions were such that they could not live there with their family and sold it at a substantial loss. She indicated that the current owners should not have to continue to try to live in these homes under these conditions, that the properties should be redesignated to commer- cial. Francis Ricker, 2459 East Lincoln Avenue, stated that he has owned and lived in the first three properties facing Lincoln Avenue Just west of Sunkist Street for the past 15 years; that he did not purchase these for speculation but for residential purposes for himself and children. He stated that he has come forth with proposals to rezone the property twice before and was unsuccessful. He indicated that the noise and soot problems have become so bad that they are intolerable and certainly not in the interest of the health of the residents. He explained that he would like to be relieved of this property and has had a for sale sign up for 8 years, but it cannot be sold with its present residential designation. In response to Councilman Roth, Mr. Ricker explained that he acquired his first property on Lincoln Avenue 15 years ago and subsequently bought the other properties about 10 years ago. Mrs. Jacquelyn Botz, 2422 Paradise Road, contended that these properties are selling and that two other homes on Lincoln Avenue had been bought in the past year. She voiced the opinion that should the Council approve a commercial designation for the property on the north side of Lincoln Avenu, next year the 8 homes to the north backing up to the alley would be before the Council with the same problem. Mr. Anthony Magdaleno, 2437 East Lincoln, stated that it is almost impossible to obtain a loan for purchase of residential property fronting on such a street as Lincoln Avenue. The reason he purchased a home on Lincoln was that it was what he could afford. He remarked that the homes themselves on Lincoln are beautiful but the conditions are unlivable and he cannot move because the price of a comparable home elsewhere is out of his range. He felt the property owners on Lincoln Avenue are not trying to put in a commercial center but rather to find some quiet businesses which might be able to use their properties and hence free them to find a place which is more livable. Mrs. Dorothy Carter, 2433 East Lincoln Avenue, related that her family purchased a home on Lincoln Avenue 12 years ago and found the conditions intolerable, but were also unable to sell the property and instead had to rent to tenants. This situation did not work well either since rental families did not want to live under the conditions on Lincoln Avenue'and they were forced to move back to their Lincoln Avenue property. She stressed that this area is Just not suitable for single-famil~ residential living anymore, citing the location of Ralphs Supermarket and the freeway. She further pointed out that Lincoln Avenue had been widened, bringing the traffic that much closer to the homes. She stated that she did not feel they were infringing upon their neighbors' rights but asking that they be considered for commercial designation so that they might find some day-time business use for the properties which would then financially permit the owners to find a place to live in a quiet residential neighborhood. 77-288 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. Under Council discussion, Council Members Thom and Roth stated that while they were in sympathy and fully understood the difficulties articulated by those property owners on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, they felt they had to support the Planning Commission recommendation at this time, even though it will not resolve their problems. Councilman Roth referred to the report submitted some years back which indicated that the City was diluting opportunities for good commerciaI projects by permitting conversion of too many existing residential structures for office use. He suggested that the residents further consider plans for consolidation of their properties with limited access from Lincoln Avenue. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council determined they would accept the City Planning Commission recommendation and adopt Exhibit "A" for General Plan Amendment No. 142, Area II. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 5 minutes. (9:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (9:15 P.M.) AREA III - CANYON AREA: Mr. Bill West presented a brief slide show describing the 14,440 acres contained in study Area III of General Plan Amendment No. 142 (also referred to as Planning Area "B"), the boundaries of this area being co-terminous with the City of Anaheim's sphere of influence as established by the Local Agency Formation Commission. Mr. West explained that the Hill and Canyon General Planning Task Force met for a period of two years and discussed a broad range of planning factors in connection with this area. Alternate plans were discussed and considered which ranged from limited to full growth having resultant population ranging from 43,000 to 73,000. The unique nature of the hill and canyon area and its environmental amenities were taken into consideration. The conclusive recommendation of both the Planning Commission and the Task Force was the proposal of the seventh alternative labeled Alternative No. "2-B" which proposed an overall lowering of land use densities in the Canyon area with resultant decrease in population, school pupil generation, roads and supportive land uses such as commercial, schools and public utilities. The Planning Commission further modified this exhibit to reduce the amount of low-medium residential along the east side of Weir Canyon Road and placed it on the west side near the intersection at Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Councilman Roth questioned why the piecemeal approach had not been considered on this easterly property particularly in view of the fact that so much acreage is in- volved and that there is a possibility of a total cost deficit of $57 million accord- ing to the Cost Benefit Study from development of the entire area. Mr. West explained that various densities were evaluated for the entire property and that in this type of analysis one of the assumptions implied is that there would be no "leap-frogging", i.e., development would be progressive. 77-289 .Qity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Thompson elaborated on the origin of the Cost/Benefit Study and the fact that another grant has been submitted to fund a study which would monitor development as it occurs in this area to provide the Council with a tool to assist in their decision-making function. Councilman Roth explained that his concern in considering the entire 14,440-acre area in the General Plan Study is based upon litigation in some Northern California cities which arose when these cities refused to provide municipal services to areas which were at one time considered in General Plan Studies because of the costs in- volved. These cities were forced to increase taxes in order to provide services to those newly developed areas. Councilman Roth stated that he feared the inclusion of all this acreage in the Anaheim General Plan Study would force the City of Anaheim to annex and provide services to all of that area whether or not they determined they wanted to at the appropriate time. He stressed that he is not a no-growth advocate, but that when he views the potential tremendous cost ramifications, he could not help but feel that this is entirely an outgoing or deficit situation, particularly in view of the probable low density character of the area, without even a regional shopping center. He noted that property taxes provide a relatively low percentage of the City's tax base. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that an objective look at the cost of municipal services in any part of the City would be frightening; that it is extremely im- portant to engage in long range planning such as this, and certainly the entire picture must be considered in order to provide a guide or tool for the present and future decision makers. Mayor Thom opened the public hearing on Area III. The City Clerk submitted a letter received from Richard R. Schmid, Williamson and Schmid, representing the Beebe estate indicating their concern to be that the steeper more .difficult portion of the property is show~ with higher densities than the more gentle sloping properties westerly of Weir Canyon and that they hope, if the Council is prepared to adopt General Plan Amendment No. 142., Plan "2-B", as recommended that it is with the understanding that there will still be some flexi- bility in land uses in the development of this property when proposed to the City. Mr. Stewart Moss, 491 Via Vista, a Canyon resident and member of the Task Force, re- called that in his association with planning considerations in the Canyon over the past 5 years, one of the primary complaints has been that the piecemeal nature of development in the Canyon has never reflected the true total picture of what is happening; in much the same fashion as an EIR prepared for a specific project por- trays environmental effects or impacts only as they relate to that project, and only when you add up all the impacts from all of the projects do you begin to see the real overall picture. Mr. Moss further commented that one of the findings determined as a result of the Cost/Benefit Study was that the higher the density considered, the more costly this would be to the City, barring industrial development. The least expensive Proposition for the City would be no-growth. He noted that the modification made in the Weir Canyon area was prompted by an environmental feature, a small natural canyon full of oak trees, which it was felt would provide an excellent pathway for riding and hiking 77-290 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. trails on the east side of Weir Canyon Road. This canyon area was originally slated for higher density development, but it was felt more appropriate to move that higher density activity to the west side of the road in order to take advan- tage of this natural feature as part of the area's recreational amenities. Mrs. Mitzy Ozaki, 340 Timken Road, noted that the Cost/Benefit Study did not include consideration of any revenues from the industrial area and, therefore, the study analyzed the residential areas which gives a false picture. She further commented that Weir Canyon is the last opportunity to connect the riding and hiking trails system to the major recreational trails system in the river bed. For this reason she felt the Council should reconsider the modification to Alternative "2-B" recommended by the City Planning Commission. By precluding access to the river bed at Weir Canyon, this would deny access from the entire Canyon area to the very large recreational facility in the river bed. Mr. Bruce Tripp, representing Kaufman and Broad, explained that his firm has an option on the Bauer Ranch property and that their topographical analysis of the property leads them to believe that the area right at the intersection of Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Roads at the freeway interchange and continuing westerly is very flat and level or gently rolling and would be more conducive to higher density development. Mr. Tripp stated that his firm would have no objections to a major riding and hiking trails system through the Bauer Ranch property and, in fact, would look forward to it as an enhancement to the development of that community. He also referred to the small canyon on the east side of Weir Canyon which would provide a natural, buffered and protected riding and hiking trail area which he felt would work very well into the riding and hiking trails system. He concluded that they would however request a change in the designations on the west side to permit more intense development on the f-lat land. Mr. Gil Ferguson, representing C.E.E.E.D., a coalition of organized labor, business and taxpayers, first complimented the City Council on their position taken in re- ducing the red tape and delays in the building permit process in the City of Anaheim. He further commended the City on the Task Force approach, stating that he has never seen a community create a task force such as in Anaheim with developers, homeowners, local government and community associations for input. He felt the end product to be a very well balanced plan. Relative to the inherent costs of development as touched upon earlier, Mr. Ferguson pointed out that development of this subject acreage over the next 25 years, if developed as planned, would create 44,400 man years of work or $1,112,000,000 worth of direct benefit, about $5,500,000 of which would directly flow into the community, in all types of businesses. He pointed out that the entire community would benefit from the synergism of this money. In addition he noted that Anaheim's population includes about 86,000 indi- viduals under the age of 24 or 56,000 under the age of 28. These are the people who will need jobs and shelter in the next 25 years. He concluded that the Council should not be frightened by the overall deficit cost figures inasmuch as the cost benefit figures have not been added in. Mr. Philip Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Hills, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, member of the Task Force, commented that his firm owns 13% of the 14,400 acres yet to be developed and included in the Study. He stated that the end product was the recom- mended alternative presented to the Council by both Task Force and City Planning 77-291 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Commission calling for a reduction in permitted densities. He also felt the figures presented in the Cost/Benefit Study should be viewed with the knowledge that municipal cost accounting is a newly emerging art. This particular Study did reveal costs to municipal government of isolated residential development. However, he did not feel that an analysis of 100 acres of hillside development vs. 100 acres of flat land development would indicate the hillside development to be more costly to the City since most of the infrastructure costs are paidby the developer. He gave examples such as the 22% water surcharge for reimbursement to developers for special water facilities and the closed loop electrical system in the Hill and Canyon area. He concluded that the Cost/Benefit Study is a useful tool and that it puts residential development into perspective, however, it is only one element in making decisions. Mr. Ken Selby, Planner for the Orange Unified School District, expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to have participated in this kind of Study. He noted that their concern is that the School District and City look at a phased growth plan; that they know in advance the numbers and types of units to be developed in a given area and what these units will yield in terms of students, as well as the timeliness of development. He noted that the School District is in favor of the request for funds to conduct a management study to track results of this plan, as this will provide them with the tools they need for planned school growth. The Orange Unified School District wishes to go on record as upholding Plan "2-B", as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Dr. Glory Ludwick, M.D., 50% owner of the Douglas Ranch located in Weir Canyon, pointed out that the deficit sum of approximately $57,000,000 quoted earlier in the meeting, over a 25-year period, divided amongst the number of persons projected for the area, comes to $30 per person per year. Further she pointed out that the river bed trail goes to the beach and that an access point at Weir Canyon would be 3 1/2 miles out of the way. Instead she felt the connection should be made at Imperial. Mrs. Dione Hesketh, 330 Timken Road, member of the Orange County Greenbelt Committee, advised that-the river bed trail extends in both directions to the beach and to the mountains and riders and hikers have the option of traveling in either direc- tion. The objective is to be able to get onto the trail at the closest point from one's home. She noted that Imperial is now out of the question as an access point because it was not planned far enough in the future, but she hoped that the County would come up with a solution for the Weir Canyon access point. Mr. Dave Downs, part-owner in the Douglas Ranch, suggested that horseback riders be required to obtain a license, the proceeds from which could be used'to develop a tunnel or whatever is needed for access to the river bed trail. He urged Council to consider in their decisions the cost implications as most of the homes projected for this planning area would not be accessible to a large percentage of the population. Mrs. Mitzy Ozaki was recognized ~y the Mayor and noted that tunnels for horses and hikers under 8 to 10 freeway lanes are not within the realm of probability. She commented that higher densities in almost any other area would not have affected the outcome of the riding and hiking trails access as much as the one modification to Alternative "2-B". 77-292 C. ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Stewart Moss interjected a comment regarding California's current water situation and noted that he believes the only move toward a solution to that situation is lower density development; that the current major drought is only a problem because the entire state of California has overbuilt its means to support the population and to supply water. Mr. Bob Brink, Planning Consultant hired by owners of the Douglas Ranch, commented from a professional perspective that his experience with this General Plan Study is that the attitude has been extremely positive, that he felt the City's Planning Department, Planning Commission and Task Force should be commended on a job well done. He stated that he concurs with the land uses shown on the plan and with the philosophy applied and in the methods used to arrive at the plan. There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth expressed his appreciation to Mr. Ferguson for comments which were very enlightening to him and which brought out some points which will allow him (Councilman Roth) to support the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilwoman Kaywood briefly recalled her misgivings at the outset of the Task Force which gave way when she realized by the third meeting that this would be a very productive and positive experience. She commented that the Anaheim Task Force approach was uniquely successful. Mayor Thom commended not only the Task Force and Planning Commission for their work on this project, but also the Planning Department staff. He further commented that he has some concern about the findings of the Cost Benefit Model, mainly that he did not feel it went deeply enough nor had enough public exposure for the Council to rely on its findings absolutely. He indicated he did feel that the City should be able to gear up to the level of service for existing areas prior to taking in new areas and that he did not feel Anaheim has reached this position yet. Further, Mayor Thom felt the proposal before the City Council to be an excellent future planning tool whichwill be used and probably amended in the ensuing years. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council determined to adopt Exhibit "2-B", as modified by the City Planning Commission, for Area III of General Plan Amendment No. 142. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. EIR NO. 195 - CERTIFICATION: EIR No. 195 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, that EIR No. 195 is in com- pliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-168 for adoption, adopting Exhibit "E" for Area I, Exhibit "A" as recommended by the City Planning Commission for Area II, and Exhibit "2-B", modified, as recommended by the City Planning Commission for Area III of General Plan Amendment No. 142. Refer to Resolution Book. '77-293 .City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES..r March 8, 19779 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-168: APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDmeNT NO. 142, EXHIBITS "E" FOR AREA I, EXHIBIT "A" FOR AREA II AND "2-B" FOR AREA III. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAMEIM Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom None Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-168 duly passed and adopted. ADJOU~NMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 10:50 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK