1976/02/1776-121
City Hall~ AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 171 1976, 1:30 P,M~.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: ASSIST~{T CITY M~NAGER: William O. Talley
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linde D. Roberts
PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS DIRECTOR: James D. Ruth
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTkNT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
.Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance
to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Randy Khoades of Melodyland Hotline Center gave the
Invocat ion.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held December 30,
1975 and January 13, 1976, were approved, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Seymour. 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 Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION UNAI~IMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount of $515,968.44, in accordance with the 1975-76 Budget, were approved.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATING COUNCIL - ALTERNATIVES: Committee report to the
Orange' County city ~,[anagers Association presenting advantages and disadvantages
of various alternatives open to tbs Intergovernmental Coordinating Council was
submitted to the Anaheim City Council. Mr. Talley requested a Council position
on any of the suggested alternatives.
Following brief discussion, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by
Councilman Seymour, the City Council indicated they favored Alternate "B", that
the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council merge with the Orange County Divi-
sion of the League of California Cities. MOTION CARRIED.
AMENDMENT TO AGREE}~NT - PACIFIC TELEPHONE CO}~ANY: (Lease of parking spaces in
,
- City lots) Mr. Talley reported that the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company has agreed to refrain from demolishing their structure located at 215
North Anaheim Boulevard until June 1, 1976, in order that the Anaheim Kingsmen
Drum and Bugle Corps can continue to utilize it. As a consideration, it is
recommended that the agreement between the City and Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company for lease of certain parking spaces in City-owned lots be
amended to waive parking fees therefor.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-59: Councilman Seymour Offered Resolution No. 76R-59 for
adoption, amendingthe agreement with Pacific Telephone Company.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
UI~I PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
Roll Call Vote:
76-122~
City HallI Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1976~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL }fEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-59 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-60 - ORANGE COUNTY BURGLARY PREVENTION INDEX: Councilman
Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-60 for adoption,
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING TIIE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF A~N AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAt~IM A~ID THE CITY OF SANTA
BNA RELATING TO THE ESTABLISIIMENT OF AN ORANGE COUNTY BURGLARY PREVENTION
INDEX, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-60 duly passed and adopted.
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT - SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID: Mr. I~tts advised that the Council
has previously received memorandum from the Utilities Director explaining the
request received from Spiegel & McDiarmid, the Attorneys who represent the City
before the Federal Power Commission and other agencies in connection with rate
cases. The request is for an increase in their hourly fee of 10%, or a sum of
$55 per hour rather than $50 per hour, as previously paid.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-61: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-61 for
adoption, authorizing amendment to the agreement with Spiegel & McDiarmid.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF A FIRST ~MENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF A/NAHEIM AND
SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AMEND~'SiNT ON BEHALF OF TIlE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (10% fee increase)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS; None
ABSENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-61 duly passed and adopted.
ACQUISITION OF PARK PROPERTY - ANAHEIM SHORES: Mr. Frank Lowry advised that two
agreements were prepared by the City Attorney's Office in connection with the
acquisition of approximately 12 acres of property adjacent to John }~arshall
School, said property generally located west of Euclid Street and north of La
Palma Avenue. The terms for purchase as discussed at the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 73-74-36 (See Minutes of May 14, 1974, Page No. 74-496)
were that the City would acquire 6 acres of subject proper~y for a reduced
amount, and the remaining 6 acres would be acquired over a period of two years
on a lease-purchase basis.
The second agreement which has been prepared relates to the lease and sub-
lease of certain portions of subject property to Matreyek Homes for use of a
house, garage and well site as a construction office for a period of five
years. The agreement further contemplates that Matreyek Homes will construc~
tennis courtsand adjoining parking lot, to be used by the Anaheim Shores
development during the construction phase until such time as the City
constructs additional tennis courts for municipal purposes, in connection with
the park. The tennis courtsconstructed by }{atreyek Homes would at that time
become public courts.
76-123
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17; 1976~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Lowry further reported thc: there is provision in these agreements for
lease of water to Matreyek Homes from the well site located on a portion of the
proposed park property. This would be accomplished by a license agreement for
a term of five years, renewable for successive five-year terms. The purpose of
this is to assure that adequate water is provided for the lake to be con-
structed in conjunction with the Anaheim Shores project, and the developer will
pay for the cost of the water.
Mr. Lowry advised that these agreements were prepared in accordance with
the terms negotiated as they were related to him, but that there seems to be a
difference of opinion as to whether or not the City Council required, as a
condition of approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-36, at the rehearing of
said item held May 14, 1974, that the developer would pay park in-lieu fees.
Mr. John Harding reported that although Condition ~o. 6 of Resolution ~']o.
74R-235 implies there may be waiver of said fees, the tape recording of that
particular hearing is still available and a transcript of that portion of the
hearing in which :he park in-lieu fees were discussed has been prepared. This
transcript was passed to the Council for review and Mr. Harding stated that it
is apparent from the discussion held that the Council's intent was that the
developer pay the park in-lieu fees.
Mr. Jim Christensen, representing Matreyek ttomes, Inc., stated that he
recalled that the original public hearing held March 19, 1974, the park in-lieu
fees were required of the developer, but that at the time of the rehearing,
when several additional conditions were imposed, including the cost for one-
half of the traffic signal to be installed at La Palma and Romneya and with
many other attendant costs, this was not the case. He noted that at that time
they also agreed to accept drainage from the Martin Luther Hospital and other
properties, which increased their drainage fees to $750,000. He recounted the
additional costs connected with development of this property, which amount to
$1,231,000, for which investment his firm can expect no return.
Mr. Christensen also stated that they are required to pay sewer and water
connection fees for 5.83 acres of their property which will be developed into a
lake and could not consequently be connected to either sewer or water systems.
Mr. Talley pointed out that it is implicit in this arrangement that the
City accept an obligation of nearly $1,000,000 to acquire and develop this park
property, which will have to be accomplished at 1976 prices. In addition the
City will maintain the park property in perpetuity.
Councilman Seymour voiced concern that five years in the future, after the
new residents in Anaheim Shores project have had exclusive use of the tennis
courts, the City Council will be faced with protests at the time these are to
become public.
Mr. Watts advised that these agreements, as presently structured, indicate
that the tennis courts constructed by Matreyek Homes would become public upon
construction of an additional four courts by the City.
Following brief discussion, Councilman Seymour suggested that this section
of the agreement be amended to delete that option, i.e,, to be worded so that
there is no doubt that the courts will become public in five years whether or
not the City constructs the additional courts.
Mr. Christensen also advised that the covenants, conditions and
restrictions will clearly explain that the tennis courts become public in five
years.
In additional discussion, Mr. Christensen advised that if required to pay
park in-lieu fees at the current level, his firm would be obliged to increase
the price for the land being sold to the City.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour indicated that he felt
the developer of the Anaheim Shores project should be required to pay park in-
lieu fees at the rate which was in effect when the reclassification was
approved in 1974 inasmuch as the City Council drove a hard bargain on the price
of park property, and the price agreed upon was below fair market value.
76-124
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1976~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley pointed out that the Council is waiving fees in the order of
$100,000 in magnitude and will still have to develop the park property at
inflated 1976 prices. The Council indicated that the Matreyek Homes land would
also be worth considerably more per acre than it was in 1974.
RESOLUTIpN NOS. 76R-62 ~D 76R-63: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Mos.
76R-62 and 76R-63 for adoption, approving the agreements with amendments to
delete the option that the tennis courts become public upon construction of
additional courts by the City, thereby providing that this would occur
automatically, and indicating that the park in-lieu fees to be paid by the
developer be established at the level in effect in 1974.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREE~,~NT TO PURCHASE AND LEASE
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED CENERALLY WEST OF EUCLID STREET AND NORTH OF LA
PALMA AVENUE FROM THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS
CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TtIE CITY OF ANAItEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ~ L,EASE, SUBLEASE AND LICENSE OF CERTAIN
CITY PROPERTY TO MATREYEK HOMES, INC., AND AU~-IORIZING THE MAYOR A~{D CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAME.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL b~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
~OES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 76R-62 and 76R-63 duly passed
and adopted.
ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST - COUNCII21AN SNEEGAS: Mayor Thom referred to two
items of correspondence received by the Council in relation to Councilman
Sneegas' alleged conflict of interest (letter from Attorney Michael Remington,
2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, 92631, dated February 12, 1976, and letter
from Mrs. Ken D. Burnap, 1105 South Hilda Street, Anaheim, 92806, dated
February 16, 1976) which remain unanswered. He inquired whether the City
Attorney was prepared to comment publicly on the dilemma.
Mr. Watts stated that he could comment in connection with the procedural
aspects of the matter, that his Office ham requested an opinion from Mr. Eugene
Jacobs for the following reasons: 1) there are no recorded court decisions
construing or interpreting the meaning of California Health and Safety Code
Section 33130; 2) Mr. Jacobs was instrumental in passage of a good deal of the
legislation involving the Redevelopment Act and he may be able to assist in
determining the legislative intent of that section, or may be aware of some
unreported decisions.
Mr. Watts advised that having received Mr. Jacobs' counsel, he hoped to
render his legal opinion to the Council in two weeks. However, he pointed out
that his opinion alone will not be a determining factor and would not result in
any member of the Council being removed from office; that in order to obtain a
final determination on the matter, some type of litigation in Superior Court
would be necessary. He outlined two methods which might be employed to bring
the matter into Superior Court.
In response to Mayor Thorn's question regarding the possible violations of
Health and Safety Code Section 33115 a~ pointed out by Mr. Remington in his
letter, Mr. Wa~ts advised that this particular section occurs in a portion of
the Code which deals with a situation wherein a redevelopment agency is
appointed by the Council and is separate and apart from the legislative body
itself, and therefore this section would not be applicable in the City of
Anaheim where the Council and Redevelopment Agency are one and the same body.
Mayor Thom requested that the City Attorney review the letter submitted by
Mrs. Burnap this date and make any appropriate comments to the City Charter and
Municipal Code sections mentioned of which there may be violation.
76-125
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1976, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour voiced his concern that this issue be resolved prior to
the date of the forthcoming municipal election and that the Council take what-
ever steps are necessary to accomplish this as it would be in the best
interests of the electorate.
Councilman Sneegas concurred and stated that he would support whatever
action is necessary to resolve or clarify this situation immediately. He
pointed out that the property in question, in which he has a lease-hold
interest, is the building in which his business is located. He reported that
he leased the property with option to buy, considering this a retirement
investment. He has not however entered escrow and advised that he would find
another way to provide for himself and his family if the judicial process
proves this necessary, lie advised that he must make a decision on whether or
not to exercise the purchase option by June 1, 1976 and consequently would
certainly want resolution of his alleged conflict of interest position before
that time.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Councilman Sneegas advised that at the
time he filed his financial disclosure statement in 1973, this lease-hold
option was not included since he did not take a lease on the building until
June 1, 1975. He did not think at that time that moving into the redevelopment
area which was to provide a tax base for improvement elsewhere would be a
violation, tie has since filed a disclosure statement including this property,
on February 6, 1976 when he filed his papers for candidacy in the forthcoming
municipal election.
..
In response to the Council, Mr. Watts indicated that although the alter-
natives are open to the Council for putting this matter into Superior Court,
from experience he would have to advise that the Judicial process would not be
accomplished in the approximate two months' time remaininp before the election.
At the conclusion of discussion and comments by the City Attorney, no
action was taken by the City Council.
..PUBLIC. HEARING- RECLASSIFICATION NO. 54-55-12 {READVERTISED): Request of Robert
E. and Richard S. Bentley for deletion of two conditions as follows, originally
contained in the City Council resolution and ordinance approving CL zoning for
property on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, between La Plaza and Cemetery
Road, was submitted together with application for negative declaration status
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report:
Condition No. 1. That there be no entrances on Cemetery Road.
Condition No. 3. That the portion of Lot No. 4 used for parking purposes
shall be fenced along Cemetery Road with a three-foot ornamental fence to
enclose the parking area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-10, reported
that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guide-
lines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact
report, and further denied the requested deletion of conditions and recommended
that a three-foot high masonry wall, in lieu of an ornamental fence, be con-
structed to enclose the parking area of the subject property adjacent to
Cemetery Road to eliminate any access to Cemetery Road from subject property.
Miss Santalahti briefed the Interdepartmental Report which was submitted
to and considered by the City Planning Commission. She also read the findings
upon which the Planning Commission based their denial of the request as set
forth in their resolution.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent was present and wished to
address the Council.
Mr. Robert Bentley, 433 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, advised that the
reason he submitted his request for deletion of the conditions was primarily
because his tenant on the property desired to use Cemetery Road for ingress and
egress by his customers. Since the Planning Commission denied his request, he
advised that he would be satisfied to lease the property as it is, i.e., with
the three-foot high chain link fencing on the easterly property line to bar
76-126
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1976.~ 1:30 P.M.
access to Cemetery Road. He advised that he did not wish to erect the three-
foot high masonry wall as recommended by the Planning Commission and noted that
evidently the City Council accepted the chain link fence as suitable to meeting
this requirement in the past. He submitted photographs showing the fencing on
the property for review by the City Council. (Said photographs were returned
to the applicant.)
In response to Council questions, Mr. Bentley advised that this chain link
fence has been in place on the property for eight to ten years; that if a block
wall were erected to replace the chain link fence, the cars in the parking lot
would run into it, and it would further present opportunities for graffiti.
Miss Santalahti advised that the original condition referred only to a
three-foot high ornamental fence.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor or in
opposition.
Mrs. Howard W. Stanton, 1498 East Birch Street, Anaheim, spokeswoman for
the neighboring residential property owners, read a letter summarizing their
reasons for requesting that the Council require a six-foot solid wall to be
erected along the property line abutting Cemetery Road and also to the north of
subject property to separate the parking area from the residential properties
to the north, these primarily being to buffer the noise from the operation of
the restaurant and to protect the homeowners to the north from cars going
through the existing wooden fence. (Mrs. Stantonts letter dated February 1,
1976 is on file in Reclassification No. 54-55-12, readvertised.)
Mr. Mike Barry, 4365 Alderdale, Anaheim, advised that he recently became
part owner of the triplex property immediately adjacent to subject property.
t{e advised that he has also received complaints about the wooden fence
separating the parking lot 'from the homes to the north. Since the fence is in
the process of falling down and needs to be replaced, he asked whether he would
be required by Code to erect a block wall.
Miss Santalahti reported that the Code requires a block wall separating
commercial from residential property, to be erected at the time of construction
of the commercial development. Zoning on this particular property was
finalized in 1955, and it is thought that the construction was completed
shortly after that time. She noted that there have been previous requests sub-
mitted by adjacent residential property owners for a six-foot block wall to be
constructed along the easterly side of subject property and Council considered
same, but no action was taken to require that such a wall be constructed.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Thom closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Sneegas stated that while he would personally urge that the two
property owners join together to replace the wooden fence to the north of the
parking lot with a block wall, he did not think the Council should enter into
that situation. With regard to requiring anything on the easterly section of
the property, Councilman Sneegas stated he would not like to penalize the prop-
erty owner because he made a request for a change in conditions.
Councilman Seymour stated that he could not see how anyone in clear
conscience could construe a chain link fence as being ornamental, to which
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Planning Commission did recommend
that a three-foot masonry wall be required to close access from Cemetery Road.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - ENVIRONF~NTAL IMPACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to
the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact
report. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-64: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-64 for
adoption, sustaining the action recommended by the City Planning Commission.
76-127
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1976~ 1:30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF %U{E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING A REQUEST TO
A~ND CERTAI2~ CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WIT/{ RESOLUTION NO. 4764 IN
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 54-55-12 (READVERTISED).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None '
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-64 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-55; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~{O. 1462
~ND VA~IA~{CE NO. 2598 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Dunn Properties Corporation
requesting approval of revised plans which are not in substantial accordance
with the exhibits originally approved, to construct three portions of an 11
part planned commercial park at ~he northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and
:~agnolia Avenue. (E.I.R. Mo. 123, originally submitted in con~unction with
this project was certified by the City Council on June 25, 1975 and no further
action would be required at this time.)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-11, recom-
mended that Reclassification No. 73-74-55, readvertised, be approved, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the completion of these reclassification proceedings is con-
tingent upon the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 1462, and Tentative Map
of Tract No. 8660.
2. That in the event that subject property is to be divided for the
purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved
division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
3. That mutual ingress and egress easements for vehicular access purposes
shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office and then be
filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder concurrently
with the parcel map, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged, as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department, prior to
commencement of structural framing.
5. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from
view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
8. That final specific plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission and City Council for review and approval.
9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Revision No. 2) and Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (Revision No.
1); provided, however, that the number and location of curb drive accesses from
subject property to adjacent public streets and highways shall be submitted to
the Traffic Engineer.
10. That petitioner request that City Council terminate Variance No. 2598.
11. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject
property, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10, 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.
12. That Condition Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-12, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1462, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this conditional use permit is granted subject to the completion
of Reclassification No. 73-74-55, now pending.
76_128:
Cit.~ Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17! 1976! 1:30 P.M.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
~o. 1 (Revision ~11o. 1).
The Deputy City Clerk reported that written request for termination of
Variance No. 2598 has been received.
?tiss Santalahti reported that these revised plans were originally con-
sidered by the City Planning Commission under Reports and Recommendations and
were felt to be substantially different from the original plans and that public
hearing would be appropriate. She reviewed the conditions under which the
original project was approved by the City Council and advised that the Planning
Commission recommended the reclassification and conditional use permit as
readvertised, to permit the development of two restaurants and two office
buildings on three separate parcels, be approved inasmuch as the petitioner
stipulated that the number of curb drive accesses along La Palina Avenue and
Magnolia Avenue will remain the same as originally approved and that specific
delineation of said drive accesses will be submitted to the Traffic Engineer
for approval. She outlined the remainder of the stipulations as set forth in
the City Planning Commission resolution.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent was present and satisfied
with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chermak, Dunn Properties, 28 Brookholl~w Drive, Santa Aha, 92702,
advised that they are satisfied with the City Planning Commission recom-
mend at io ns.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, either in
favor or in opposition; there being no response, he declared the hearing
closed.
.R. ES.OLUTION NO. 76R-65: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 76R-65 for
adoption, approving Reclassification No. 73-74-55 as readvertised, subject to
the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ?~]SOLUTION ~0.
74R-299 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 73-74-55, P, EADVERTISED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ~[BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None
ABSEI.~T: COUNCIL b~MBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-65 duly passed and adopted.
R_ESOLUTION NO. 76R-66: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 76R-66 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1462, subject to the conditions
recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF I~tE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~AHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
74R-301 GRA~NTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MO. 1462, Pd~ADVERTISED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ME~,~BERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-66 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION MO. 76R-67: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 76R-67,
terminating Variance No. 2598.
Refer to Resolution Book.
76-129
City ~{all, Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17! 19761 1:30
A RESOLUTION OF T~IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ;2~AHEIM TERMINATING ALL PRO-
CEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WI//{ VARIANCE NO. 2598, fDhD DECLARING Pd~SOLUTIO~.~
74R-300 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~MBERS: tlaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL }~MBERS'. ~]one
ABSENT: COUNCIL I.~BERS: None
The ~ayor declared Resolution No. 76R-67 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Seymour moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:10 P.M.)
AFTER P~CESS: }{ayor Thom called the meeting to order, all >~embers of the City
' C0unc'{1 being present. (3:20 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING.- RECLASSIFICATION NO, 75-76-16ANDVARIANCE NO. 2771 (E,!.R. NO, ]63):
(Tract No. 9149) Application of Mark D. Leff for a change in zone from CL and CH to
RS-5000 and for the following Code waiver to establish a l17-1ot RS-5000
subdivision on property located on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard, between
Crowther Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue (Portion "B"), was submitted together
with Environmental Impact Report No. 163; (Portion "A" located at the north-
west corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard is not included in
subject reclassification.)
a. Requirement that single family structures rear on arterial highways.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-13, recom-
mended that E.I.R. No. 163 be certified as being in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and further recommended approval of
Reclassification No. 75-76-16, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along
Crowther Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard including preparation of improvement
plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, 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 s~reet lighting facilities along Crowther Avenue, Kraemer
Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue 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 satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned
requ ir ement s.
2. That sidewalks shall be installed along Orangethorpe Avenue as
required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of 60 cents per front foot along Crowther Avenue, llraemer Boulevard and
Orangethorpe Avenue for tree planting purposes.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appro-
priate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
~. 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.
9. -That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent
upon the granting of Variance No. 2771.
10. Prior to the introduction of an nrdinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or
76-130
City H_.all, Anaheiml California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17; 1976; 1:30 P.M.
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.
11. That Condition ilos. 2, 5, and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-14, granted
Variance No. 2771, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 75-76-16, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
No. 1; provided, however, that Lot No. 39, as shown on Exhibit No. 1~ shall
have a minimum building setback of forty (40) feet adjacent to Orangethorpe
Avenue, per City Council Policy ~'to. 538, unless the City Council gran:s relief
from said policy and permits a 26-foot setback for said lot; and that a
structural wall, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, shall be constructed
on top of the proposed berm alonc the northerly property line adjacent to
Crowther Avenue and the railroad tracks, as a sound attenuation measure
complying with Council Folicy No. 542, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
Miss Santalahti described the surrounding land uses and briefed the report
submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. She indicated the
basis upon which the Planning Commission recommended that Council Policy No.
538 which specifies a 40-foot building setback adjacent to arterial highways be
waived. She noted that the petitioner has stipulated to including a structural
wall as defined in the Uniform Building Code at the top of the proposed berm
along the property line adjacent to the railroad tracks as a sound attenuation
device in compliance with Council Policy No. 542.
In response to the Mayor, Mr. Jim Christensen, representing Warmington
Company, indicated that they were satisfied with the recommendations of the
City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in favor
or in opposition to the proposed reclassification and variance; there being no
response~ he declared the hearing closed.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Christensen advised that the
reason Portion "A" was not included in this reclassification was that there is
no other commercial area and this would be a fine location for a convenience
market or laundromat-type establishment to service the community. He advised
that there is no intention at this time to put a service station on Portion
"A", and if this is decided, the developer would still have to apply for a
conditional use permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 163 - CERTIFICATION: E.I.P.. }Io. 163 having
been reviewed by the City staff and recommended bY the City Planning Commission
to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California
Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and
belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Seymour~ seconded by
Councilman Pebley that E.I.E. No. 163 is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-68: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-68 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF I]IE CITY COUNCIL OF 2RIE CITY OF A~MAHEIM FINDING ~3.ID DETEP~INING
TIIAT TITLE 18 OF TIlE ANAHEIM MUI~ICIPAL CODE ~3ELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE
AMS~DED ;2~D %~{AT THE BO~]DARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CItA~M~ED. (75-76-16,
RS-5000)
Roll Call Vote:
76-131
City Ilall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1976~ 1:30 P.~.
AYES: COUNCIL M~MBERS; Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~91MBERS; None
The ~ayor declared Resolution No. 76R-68 duly passed and adopted.
!{ESOLUTION NO. 76R-69: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-69 for
adoption, granting Variance I,~o. 2771, subject to the conditions recommended by
the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF ~{E CITY COUNCIL OF ~{E CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARI~,~CE NO.
2771.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL f~MBERS~ Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABS~T: COUNCIL ~EMBERS; None
The .Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-69 duly passed and adopted.
T~NTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. 9149: (Reclassification No. 75-76-16, Variance No.
2771 and E.I.R. No. 163) Developer, Warmington Company; tract located north-
westerly of the corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard; containing
117 proposed P~-5000 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 19, 1976,
approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 9149, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 9149 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification ~',~o. 75-76-16.
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, east and south property lines separating Lot
Nos. 1 through 9 and Crowther Avenue; Lot ~'Ios. 9 through 27 and Kraemer
Boulevard; and Lot Nos. 29 through 39 and Orangethorpe Avenue, except that for
corner Lot No. 39 said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30)
inches in the required front yard setback.
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 restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final
tract map.
7. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit
to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed
functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the
articles of incorporation bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to
insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other information
as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens~ and tile
purchasers of the project.
8. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City 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. -That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
11. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary
street name siEns shall be ins:ailed prior to any occupancy.
76-132
City dall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1976~ 1:30 P.M.
12. That a structural wall as defined by the Uniform Building Code, shall
be constructed on top of the proposed berm along the property line adjacent to
Crowther Avenue and the railroad tracks, as a sound-attenuation measure
complying with Council Policy No. 542, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
13. That the sound-attenuation requirements for properties located
adjacent to railroad tracks, arterial highways, etc., shall be complied with as
prescribed in Council Policy ~o. 542, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
14. That Lot No. 39, as shown on E~libit 1, shall have a minimum building
setbacl~ of forty (40) feet adjacent to Orangethorpe Avenue, per City Council
Policy ~o. 538, unless the City Council grants relief from said policy and
permits a 26-foot setback for said lot.
l-{r. Christensen reported that on those streets in this tract where wall
and berm would be located because the City right-of-way extends 11 feet, there
will be a strip of land between the dedicated area and wall which might create
a maintenance problem. }~e proposed that to alleviate the situation the City
either allow construction of the sidewalk next to the streets~ (omitting the
parkway area) and that the berm start at the property line adjacent to the
sidewalk. This would also permit the developer to add additional footage to
the individual lots. The other alternative would be for the developer to con-
struct the sidewalk in routine fashion with parkway and dedicate the additional
strip of land to the City.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the pro-
posed subdivision, Tentative Map, Tract .~;o. 9149, together with its design and
improvement was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the
City Council approved said tentative map, subject to the conditions recommended
by the City Planning Commission with amendment to Condition Nos. 3, 13 and 14
as follows to permit the construction of sidewalks adjacent to the street and
placement of the berm at the property line as outlined by Mr. Christensen.
3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall
shall be constructed on the north, east and south property lines separating Lot
!~os. 1 through 9 and Crowther Avenue; Lot .~Ios. 9 through 27 and Kraemer
Boulevard; and Lot Nos. 29 through 39 and Orangethorpe Avenue, except that for
corner Lot i~o. 39, said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30)
inches in the required front yard setback. 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 land-
scaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of
Parkway ~aintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of
Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
13. That the sound-attenuation requirements for properties located
adjacent to railroad tracks, arterial highways, etc., shall be complied with as
prescribed in Council Policy ~'~o. 542, as stipulated to by the petitioner; pro-
vided however, that placement of the sound-attenuation earthen berm in the
arterial highway right-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Public Works Director and Planning Director.
14. That Lot No. 39, as shown on Exhibit 1, shall have a minimum building
setback of 26 feet adjacent to Orangethorpe Avenue, as approved by the City
Council.
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC ]tEARING - VARIanCE NO. 2769: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Seymour, public hearing on Variance No. 2769 for Code waiver to
permit construction of a fotomat facility on CL zoned property located south-
east of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street, was Continued
to the meeting of February 24, 1976 as requested by the applicants, David and
Lillian Dow. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1581: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council accepted the with-
drawal of the application submitted by Betty McLeod, et al, for Code waiver to
permit an automatic carwash with gasoline sales on RS-A-43,000 zoned property
located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and West Street. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC !iEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT :.:0. 1587: Submitted by Pacific World
Corporation together with application for negative declaration status from the
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, to permit a planned
industrial complex with commercial uses and a restaurant on ~.~ zoned property
76--133
C_ity ~.all,...Anah..eim, Califo.rnia -.....COUNCIL MIIfl3TES - February 17~ 1976~ 1.:.3.0 P'M'
located southwesterly of the intersection of Katella Avenue and State Collece
lloulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution ilo. PC76-7, recom-
mended that the project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report and further granted Conditional Use Permit No.
1587, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of the street
along Pacifico Avenue for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along
Pacifico Avenue and State College Boulevard including preparation of improve-
ment plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, 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 Pacifico Avenue 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 satisfactory to the
City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of
the above-mentioned requirements.
~ That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of ~aheim
the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Katella Avenue and State College
Boulevard for street lighting purposes.
4. That sidewalks shall be installed along Xatella Avenue as required by
the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the City Engineer.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
6. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
$. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
9. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and
then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
10. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director
of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
11. That a 10-foot wide public utility easement extending southerly from
Pacifico Avenue to the southernmost boundary of subject property shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim, on an alignment subject to the approval of
the Director of the Utilities Department.
12. That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, a planted median shall be
installed in State College Boulevard, as required by the City Engineer and in
accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the
City Engineer; that reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities,
shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Superintendent of
Parkway }~aintenance; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the
City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of
the above-mentioned requirements. Following the installation and acceptance,
the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said
land sc aping.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
'.los. 1 through 5; provided, however, that the location and number of all drive
accesses to }%atella Avenue, Pacifico Avenue, and State College Boulevard shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Traffic Engineer; that a private
street constructed to public street standards shall be provided on the
northerly parcel, and that the means of restricting left turn vehicular ingress
and egress from ilatella Avenue shall also be subject to the review and approval
of the Traffic Engineer.
14. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within
76-134
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - CO~CIL MII~JTES - February
a period of one year from date hereof, whichever, occurs first, or such further
time as the Flannlng Commission and/or City Council may grant.
15. That Condition ~os. 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13, above-mentioned, shall be com-
plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
16. ~hat each use proposed to be established on subject property, which is
intended to qualify under Code Section 18.61.050.400, shall be submitted in
written form to the Planning Department for review and approval in order that a
determination may be made as to whether the proposed use would be appropriate
for the site and whether sufficient parking is provided on the property to
accommodate an additional parking demand created by such a use. In order to
provide guidelines for staff determlnation~ the following type of uses, as sub-
mitted by the petitioner, may be permitted subject to the written request and
review procedure outlined above:
a. Mortgage and finance companies
b. Investment security companies
c. Insurance companies - branch or home offices
d. Insurance agencies and brokerage firms
e. Real estate firms - investment, commercial and industry only
f. Title and escrow companies
g. Attorneys
h. CPAt s
i. Advertising
j. Engineering firms - consulting
k. Architects
1. Marketing research
m. Interior decoration
n. Management consultants
o. Travel agencies
p. Training schools related to sales promotion, management skills,
advancement, etc.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
Richard R. Stenton, Golden West Equity Properties Inc., primarily because of
certain major development problems which they felt should be resolved before
the beginning of construction.
The Deputy City Clerk reported that communication dated February 10, 1976,
from Isidore C. Myers, owner of property immediately adjacent and south of
subject property, had been received stating they have no objections to the
granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 1587.
Mr. Ronald Thompson briefly described the location and configuration of
the two subject parcels. He advised that subsequent to the Planning Commission
consideration and approval of this conditional use permit, the City Staff has
had several meetings with Golden West representatives regarding the development
problems. The outcome of these meetings and description of the major points
which need to be resolved in connection with the development of this property
are contained in a joint report prepared by the Planning, Engineering and
Utility Departments and City Attorney's Office, dated February ~, 1976. (Said
report on file in the office of the City Clerk.) These findings were briefed
for the City Council by ~r. Thompson.
l.fr. Thompson advised that at the final meeting with representatives from
Golden 17est certain of the situations as reported in the February 4, 1976
memorandum were discussed and are no longer as reported, i.e., the developer
would not now be concerned if the City Council determines the north-south
street extending between Katella Avenue and the future extension of Pacifico
Street should be constructed according to public street standards. Further-
more, the developer has indicated he would revise his plans affecting the State
College Boulevard frontage, by decreasing the number of access points from four
to two, so that the planted median island would no longer be necessary. There-
fore the remaining points to be resolved are the costs for relocation of the
overhead utility lines; the dedication and improvement of Pacifico Street, and
the cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Pacifico Street and State
College Boulevard.
Mr. William Devitt reported that the cost estimate for construction of the
Pacifico Street Extension with improvement~ to ultimate width is $125,000.
recalled that in 1965 the City did offer to do street paving if the industrial
76-135
City ttall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MI~3TES - February 17~ 1976~ 1:30 P.~.
developer would do the rough grading. Subsequent to that time however the
Council has rescinded this paving policy. In addition there is a policy
adopted by the City Council that in the instance a developer proposes to con-
struct an arterial highway prior to the City's submittal of that highway as an
AttFP project, the developer would pay full costs of improvement. If the
arterial highway can be submitted as an A}tFP project the City's participation
is limited to the cost of the center 24 feet of paving.
Hr. Singer described the proposed traffic circulation system for the
project which was developed by his office and the developer. This revised
system no longer requires the planted median on State College Eoulevard because
of the reduction from four driveways to two. There would be a private north-
south street intersecting with Katella Avenue restricced to right turn exit
only.
l{r. Singer advised that a traffic signal would be required at the inter-
section of Pacifico and State College Boulevard. It is proposed since the ~min
entrance to the Stadium is located at that intersection that the cost of the
signal be shared 50% to the developer and 50% to the City. The estimated cost
of the signal is $40,000 and the developer's share would be prorated to the
approximately 50 acres of property affected at $400 per acre. This traffic
signal will not be installed until such time as the warrants meet 60% of the
projected ultimate traffic volume as shown on the traffic study performed by
the developer's traffic consultant.
Council discussion ensued reEarding the impact of tkis project upon
Stadium traffic, and Mr. Singer explained that they anticipate most of the
future Stadium traffic would be westbound to the Route 57 Freeway, and they
expect the Santa Ana Freeway to have only minimal traffic volume to the
Stadium. He explained the ingress and egress as plannned to the proposed
project.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's comment that she could not see the
benefit to the City of a traffic signal at the intersection of State College
and Pacifico, it was explained that this would aid the Police Department in
control of Stadium traffic and would completely handle control of the traffic
for events with smaller crowds. Mr. Singer explained the precedent established
by the Cicy to share 50% of the cost of traffic signals in certain situations.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether it has been anticipated that there
might be a problem with Stadium patrons utilizing the parking spaces provided
in this development in order to avoid the Stadium parking fee. Mr. Singer
responded that since these spaces would be located on private property the City
would have no control over same, but the business operators could at their
discretion charge for parking with ticket validation or utilize other means to
correct the situation should it become a problem. It was noted that the
developer proposes parking substantially over the Code requirements and that
most restaurants do not mind this type of use of their parking spaces since it
increases clientele. ~4r. Singer stressed that there will be no impact on State
College Boulevard or Katella Avenue as no parkinf~ will be permitted on either
of these streets.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his acent was present and wished to
address the Council.
Mr. Lloyd McDonald, Principal and Owner, Golden I~;est Properties, stated
that since Pacifico Street was indicated on the General Plan as a dedicated
street they have worked their development program towards that eventuality, lie
advised that his firm does not own all of the property adjacent to the proposed
extension of Pacifico Street, but in order to accelerate development of their
property, they are willing to take on the responsibility of obtaining the
dedications necessary for extension of Pacifico Street from the existing
portion adjacent to State College Boulevard to the existing portion east of
Lewis Street. Further they agree to installation of underground drainage,
sewer and water lines if the City would put in above-ground street
imp r ovemen t s.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. McDonald stated that it is his
understanding that the matters which remain to be resolved regardin~ the
development of subject area are: which party will be responsible for the. cost
76-136
City Hall! Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17; 1976; 1;30
of removal of the power lines and the improvement of Pacifico Street, In con-
nection with the power lines, he advised that these are situated in such a
manner as to run right ~hrough their building sites. Since there is no
recorded easement for these lines, they do not think they should be responsible
to pay the cost for removal of same. }~owever, they would like a continuance of
this item for discussion and negotiation with the City Attorney.
Regarding street improvement, >fr. McDonald emphasized that the City did in
the past give strong indication that they would desire Pacifico to go through
to Lewis Street to ultimately provide access to the Convention Center.
advised that they purchased their 18 acres of land with the understanding,
pursuant to City Council kesolution Ho. 66R-270, that the City would improve
the street. He reiterated that in order to accelerate the extension of
Pacifico Street through to Lewis Street his firm would take on the responsi-
bility of acquiring the necessary deeds, installing sewer and water system and
storm drain, if the City would pave the street and put in curbs and gutters.
During discussion, ~r. ~!cDonald made an additional offer to pave Pacifico
Street and install above-ground improvements in accordance with City standards
and specifications for the sum of $80,000, and still put in all underground
utilities.
The City Attorney advised that the City must go out to bid on such public
improvement projects and that perhaps the owner would be willing to pay the
difference between the $80,000 and the actual cost thereof, to which
Mr. McDonald indicated agreement.
>~r. Devitt reiterated that ?acifico Street is an arterial highway and the
City's normal responsibility would be for the center 24 feet which, as an AtiFP
project, would cost the City an estimated ~30,000.
During discussion both Council Members Seymour and Pebley indicated that
they felt certain trade-offs would be justified in order to accelerate the
improvement of ?acifico Street inasmuch as it would open up a prime area for
industrial development. It was noted that the increase in assessed valuation
would be more than sufficient to justify the trade-offs being proposed.
Councilman Sneegas was concerned that improvement of Pacifico Street would
benefit other property owners ,~om he felt should be required to pay their
share.
>Ir. ~Tatts advised that despite the fact that Resolution ~o. 66R-270 has
not been rescinded, in his opinion, the Council still has the legal prerogative
of taking action to remove that declaration of intent prior to the land dedica-
tion being~ made since it was an offer to do something at the time of dedica-
tion. Insofar as the power lines are concerned, he reiterated bis position
that the City does have an easement by rights of adverse possession, lie stated
that he felt the utility easement contention could be resolved to the extent of
facilitating developr.,ent by entering an agreement which recognizes that there
is a dispute as to the responsibility for re~oval of the lines, after which the
power lines could be moved and tbe decision as to who will bear the cost
resolved through litigation or negotiation.
~ayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in
favor or in opposition to Conditional Use Permit >io. 1587; there being no
response, he declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Seymour stated that his thinking on this trotter is as follows:
1) that he would like to see the future of this entire area directed; 2) that
activating that acreage of industrial development would benefit the City in tax
revenues to the extent that special consideration is warranted; and 3) that he
feels there is a moral commitment made by the City based upon Resolution i;o,
66R-270, since this has not been rescinded.
EI,~VIRON~NTAL IMPACT REPORT - ~WEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 environmental impact report. MOTION
CARRIED.
76-137
City. Hall. l..AnaheimI California - COUNCIL .~!INUTES - Februa. r~ 17; 19761 1:30 ¥.~..~.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-70: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-70 for
adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1587, subject to the conditions
recommended by the City Planning Commission with amendments as follows to
reflect: 1) the course of action the City will take in regard to the utility
line easement be as outlined by the City Attorney; 2) that the developer be
required to extend underground utilities along Pacifico Street between State
College Boulevard and Lewis Street and that the above-ground on-site street
improvements be installed by the City at a cost not to exceed $80,000; 3) that
the north-south private street intersecting with Katella Avenue be permitted to
be constructed at a width of 40 feet curb to curb with right-turn only access
to ~iatella Avenue as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer; 4) that the
developer and City share the cost of the traffic signal to be located at the
intersection of Pacifico Street and State College Boulevard on a 50/50 ratio.
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of the street
along Pacifico Avenue for street widening purposes.
2, a. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along
State College Boulevard including preparation of improvement plans and
installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street
grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work, shall be
complied with as required by the City t~ngineer and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; and that a
bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheir: shall be posted
with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned
requirements.
2. b. That the underground utilities along Pacifico Avenue between State
College Boulevard and Lewis Street shall be extended and installed by the
owner(s) of subject property and that the above-ground street improvements
along Pacifico Avenue shall be installed by the City of Anaheim at a cost not
to exceed $80,000; if the cost should exceed g~0,OOq, the ovmer(s) of subject
property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the difference between the $~0,000
and the total cost of such improvements, as stipulated to by the petitioner;
and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall
be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said underground
utilities.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Katella Avenue and State College
Boulevard for street lighting purposes.
4. That sidewalks shall be installed along Katella Avenue as required by
the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the City Engineer.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
6. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to thc City Engineer.
9. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and
then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
10. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director
of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
11. That a 10-foot wide public utility easement extending southerly from
Pacifico Avenue to the southernmost boundary of subject property shall be
dedicated ~o the City of Anaheim, on an alignment subject to the approval of
the Director of the Utilities Department.
12. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay a proportionate share
to the City of Anaheim for the cost of the traffic signal to be located at the
intersection of Pacifico Avenue and State College Boulevard or a bond in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the
City to guarantee payment of the proportionate cost of said traffic signal,
prior to-the issuance of building permits.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 5; provided, however, that the location and number of all.drive
76-138
City H.all; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17; 1976; 1:30 P.M.
accesses to Katella Avenue, Paclfico Avenue, and State College Boulevard shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Traffic Engineer; and that the
private street provided on the northerly parcel shall be 40 feet wide from curb
to curb and that right-turn only ingress and egress shall be provided from
Katella Avenue and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Traffic
Engineer.
14. That Condition ~os. 1, 2-a, 2-b, 3, 9, and 11, above-mentioned, shall
be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under
this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or
within a period of one year from the date hereof, whichever occurs first, or
such further time as the City Council may grant.
15. That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13, above-mentioned~ shall be com-
plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
16. That each use proposed to be established on subject property, which is
intended to qualify under Code Section 18.61.050.400, shall be submitted in
written form to the Planning Department for review and approval in order that a
determination may be made as to whether the proposed use would be appropriate
for the site and whether sufficient parking is provided on the proper:y to
accommodate an additional parking demand created by such a use. In order to
provide guidelines for staff determination, the following type of uses, as sub-
mitted by the petitioner, may be permitted subject to the written request and
review procedure outlined above:
a. Mortgage and finance companies
b. Investment security companies
c. Insurance companies -branch or home offices
d. Insurance agencies and brokerage firms
e. Real estate firms - investment, commercial and industry only
f. Title and escrow companies
g. Attorneys
h. CPA' s
i. Advertising
j. Engineering firms - consulting
k. Architects
1. Marketing research
m. Interior decoration
n. Management consultants
o. Travel agencies
p. Training schools related to sales promotion, management skills,
advancement, etc.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF A~NAHEIM GRA~{TING CONDITIONAL
USE PEP2,[IT MO. 1587.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL }~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL }~MBERS: None
ABS~2~T: CO~CIL }{E~BERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-70 duly passed and adopted.
USE OF LA PALMA PAR2(; GLOVER STADIUM A~D ~iARTIN Pd~CREATION HALL - CINCO
DE MAYO FIESTA: Request of ~.~.argarita L. Maes, Community Aide, Fremont Junior
High School for use of La Palms Park, Glover Stadium and Martin Recreation Hall
on May 1 and 2, 1976 for the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta, and further requesting
waiver of the business license fee in connection wl~h sale of various items at
the event was submitted together with reports from the City Attorney's Office
and Com~unity Relations Representative.
Mr. Joel Guerena addressed the City Council on behalf of the Fremont
Parent Advisory Committee, Title I, and requested that the City co-sponsor this
event which has grown from its inception to an anticipated attendance of 20,000
this year.
Mr. Ruth, Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, advised that they con-
sider this an excellent community activity and will cooperate with the group to
provide chairs, tables, booths and the sho~mobile.
76-139
City ~all, Anaheim, California - CO~CIL ~INUTES - February 17~ 1976, 1:30
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council approved co-sponsorship of the Cinco de :-~ayo Fiesta to be held May 1
and 2, 1976, and waiver of tile business license fees in connection therewith;
and further approved the use of La Palma Park facilities as requested for
planned activities to include a coronation dance, color guard presentation,
celebration of a Catholic :{ass, costume parades, sports exhibitions, game and
food booths, ~[exican artifacts and home-made article booths and musical and
dancing entertainment, subject to coordination with tile Police Department and
the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department and further subject to arrange-
ments being made for insurance to cover any liability which may result from
sale of food items, etc. }!OTIOl.l CARRIED.
~ECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-25L...-iEXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Bernardo M. Yorba
for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for CL zoning on
property located at the northwest corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway, was submitted together with reports and recommendations from the City
Engineer and Planning Department, and extension of time was granted retroactive
to 3anuary 29, 1974, expiring 3anuary 29, 1977, on motion by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CAILRIED.
COi-~INUATION OF SOLICITATION PERMIT - BERE~2~ BIBLE ITiNISTRIES; ]2~C.; On motion
by Councilwoman ~[aywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the request for
solicitation permit submitted by Norman J. Carl, on behalf of the Berean Bible
Ministries, Inc., to solicit charitable funds in the City of Anaheim, was con-
tinued to the meeting of March 16, 1976, as requested by the applicant. MOTION
CARRIED.
TRACT NO. 7666~ REVIS.I~~ NO. 1 - UAIVER OF CONDITION NO. g: Request of G.
Richard Sant,.S~an/U~'tonstructio~ Company, for wai'ver of Condition No. 8 of Tract
No. 7666, Rev~9~xon No. 1, to permit grading prior to completion of drainage
facilities, ~s submitted for Council consideration together with reports from
the City~'gineer and Planning Department. Said tract is located at the north-
east ~er of La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard.
~.~ On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City
/ Council approved waiver of Condition Mo. 8, Tract No. 7666, ReVision ~:o. 1,
subject to the submission of a letter holding the City harmless from any damage
from upstream waters to subject property or downstream properties and further
subject to the following conditions recommended by the City Engineer:
1. That a temporary drainage swale be constructed from the existing arch
culvert at the northerly tract boundary to a temporary "bleeder pipe" to be
installed by the developer across La Palma Avenue at the easterly tract
boundary.
Said drainage swale to remain until the storm drain from the northerly
tract boundary to the Santa Ana River has been constructed by the developer.
The "bleeder pipe" is to remain until such time as the property east of Tract
l~o. 7666 is graded, at which time it shall be removed by the developer.
2. That a letter be obtained from the County of Orange accepting the
storm drain water from the "bleeder pipe" onto their property south of La Palina
Avenue prior to grading plan approval.
Councilman Seymour abstained from both voting on the foregoing motion and
any discussion pertaining to Tract ],~o. 7666, Revision ~')o. 1. MOTION CARRIED.
RCSOLUTION NO. 76R-71 - AGREEMENT.~ SPECIAL WATER FACILITIES: (Criterion
Development Company, Tract !~o. 8713) In accordance with Rule No. 15 of the
Water Rules, P. ates and Regulations and the recommendation of the Utilities
Director, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-71 for adoption.
Refer to Resolu~ion Book.
A RESOLUTIOi{ OF IIIE CITY COUNCIL OF %lie CITY OF A/~AHEIM APPROVING ;uN AGREE~D~NT
WITII CRITERION DEVELOPmeNT CO~ANY IN CONNECTION I7I%"H ~IE ?JiI~LBURSFP~T OF
PRIOR ADVANCES FOR SPECIAL WATER FACILITIES TO SERVE TRACT 8713, Bled TO
AU/qlORIZE /lie ~:AYOR AND CITY CLERX TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
76-140
C_ity l~all, Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17; 1976; 1;30 P.I{.
AYE£: COUNCIL b~I. IBEP, S: ]iaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
;IOES; COUi;CIL }~MBERS: ~'~one
ABSEI~: COU~'ICIL MEI~BERS: ~lone
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-71 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Sneegas voiced concern that adequate information reach prospec-
tive purchasers of homes at higher elevation levels, so that they will be aware
of the surcharge to be levied and the purpose of same. tie stated that it has
become apparent to him that this information is not being disseminated
currently.
Following brief discussion, it was degermined that the best method to
accomplish this would be to include such information in the Ceneral Plan
information material which the developers are now required to present to home
buyers. The Planning Director was instructed to include information on the
special wa~er facilities surcharge in that material.
IMPROVEMENT COSTS - ¢~UINTAEiA DRIVE; (Tract ~!o. 7787) Xeport from the City
Engineer was submitted recommending that an additional g11,~30.59 be trans-
ferred from the Council Contingency Fund for final payment to cover the City's
responsibility for improvements of Quintana Drive located adjacent to Tract No.
7787.
;~rief discussion was held during which the Assistant City Manager reported
on the impact of the proposed transfer on the Council Contingency Fund, i.e.,
that with this transfer the remaining balance in the Fund would be approxi-
mately $93,000. The costs agreed to earlier in the meeting for improvement of
Pacifico Street in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1587 (not to
exceed $80,000) were brought up, and ~'.:r. Devitt advised that once dedication is
made by the property owners for that street, the City would be able to apply
gas tax funds to the cost.
~'~ased upon the report given by the Assistant City Manager as to the impact
of this expenditure on the Council Contingency Fund, Councilman Seymour moved
that a transfer of funds from the Council Contingency Fund be authorized in the
amount of $11,830.59 to Account ~io. 100-461-992-02-0000 for final payment to
cover the City's responsibility for improvements of Quintana Drive. ~OTIO~
CAP~IED.
CONSULTI!;G ENGINEERS - AN~J~IM CA>~YO~'! INDUSTRIAL AREA STOR~{ DP~INS: P, eport from
the City Engineer was submitted recommending that the Council accept proposals
for the design and plan preparation of specified drains as follows for the
Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area, and further that the Council authorize the City
Attorney to prepare agreements with these engineers in accordance with the
City's work statement and their proposals: a) Tait and Associates, Drain ~o.
18; b) McDaniel and Associates, Drain Nos. 5 and 6; c) Anacal Engineering
Company, Drain l;os. 8, 9, 11, 16 and 19.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council accepted the proposals as recommended by the City Engineer and
directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary agreements. Councilman
Sneegas abstained from any discussion on the s~orm drains and from voting on
the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSULTanT SERVICES - PATT STREET COb'R, fOI~,~ITY: On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilnmn Pebley~ the report and decision on consultant services
for the Patt Street Community was continued to the meeting of February 24,
1976. '~[OT ION CARRIED.
ARCIIITECT - PARK CONTROL BUILDINGS: (Rio Vista, Juarez and Schweitzer Parks)
l[emora~%dum from James D. Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts
Department recommending that the City engage the services of Allen and Miller
to do working drawings and field inspections for park control buildings to be
constructed at Rio Vista, Juarez and Schweitzer Parks, was submitted. The fee
recommended is ~% of the total cost of construction which is estimated at
$100,000.
76-141
C. it~ Hall~ ;.naheim~ California - CO~'~CIL MI~JTES - February 17~ 1976~ 1:30 P.I.~.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council approved the employment of Allen and Miller as recommended and
authorized staff to prepare the necessary agreement. ~OTION CARRIED.
CO~oE~T CALENDAR ITemS' On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Febley, the following acgions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council }~ember and as llst on the Consent
Calendar Agenda;
1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to
the insurance carrier:
a. Claim submitted by Robert L. l~ildin for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of explosion of wires on telephone pole at !:estern and Oranfe
Avenues~ on or about January 28, 1976.
b. Claim submitted by Robert D. Elaszak and Robert F. Odam for damages
purportedly sustained as a result of actions of Anaheim Police Officer, on or
about l!ovember 2, 1975.
c. Claim submitted by Arlene Wilkins for injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of condition of stopping surfaces for golf carts at Anaheim Hills
Golf Course, on or abou~ December 20, 1975.
2. FOOL RQ0.~i~ AMUSEMENT DEVICES ;2~D PUBLIC DA~NCE PER, TITS: The following per-
mits were granted subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Pool Room Permit for 15 billiard tables to be located at Beach Call
Family Billiards, 3015 ?Test Ball Road (Dale S. ?~alec, Applicant).
b. Amusement Devices Permit for 11 assorted coin operated machines to be
located at the Bread ~ox Arcade, 320 East mrangewood ;venue (Linda L. Speer,
Applicant).
c. Amusement Devices Permit for 5 pool tables to be located at the Wild
Goose, 1160 ~:orth l.%raemer Boulevard (Ivan ~,osich, Applicant).
d. Public Dance Permit for Sociedad Progresista >~exicana Logia No. 33 to
conduct a public dance on February 22, 1975 from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at
Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Street (Concha C. Flores, Applicant).
3. CORPJiSPONDE~CE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. Before the PUC - In the matter of the application of the Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation, for telephone service rate
increases to cover increased costs in providing telephone service.
Investigation on the Commission's own motion into the rates, tolls,
rules, charges, operations, costs, separations, inter-company settlements,
contracts, service, and facilities of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company, a California corporation; and of all the telephone corporations listed
in Appendix A, attached hereto - l.~otice of llearing.
b. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - January 15,
1976.
c. Canyon Area General Planning Task Force - ~inutes - February 3, 1976.
d. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - January 21, 1976.
e. OCTD Board of Directors - Minutes - February 2, 1976.
f. Financial and operating report for the month of January 1976 for the
Building Division.
MOTION CAPdlIED .
CORPd~SPOHDENCE - YORBA LINDA RESOLUTION NO. 816: Councilwoman Kaywood requested
that the City of Yorba Linda Resolution No. 816 expressing opposition to the
proposed Chino ilills Airport be removed from the Consent Calendar for dis-
cussion.
RESOLUTION NO , 76R-72: After brief discussion Councilwoman i%aywood offered
Resolution ~qo. 76R-72 for adoption, reiterating the City's position.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF ~iIIE CITY COUNCIL OF T'~E CITY OF ANAHEIM EXPREoSING ITS OPPOSI-
TI0~ TO TIlE PROPOSED CHINO HILLS AIRPORT.
76-142
City iiall~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL ~fiNUTES - February 17~ 1976t 1:30 P.~.!.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEbIBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ,~E~XiBERS; Uone
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL ~]MBERS: Sneegas
AB ......
S~.~T. COUNCIL ~:iBERS, None
The ~iayor declared Resolution No. 76R-72 duly passed and adopted.
RZSOLUTIO?I NOS. 76R-73 TIIROUGH 76R-77; Councilmmn Pebley offered Resolution ~ios.
76R-73 through 76R-77, both inclusive, for adoption, in accordance with the
reports, recomn:endations and certifications furnished each Council Member and
as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda:
Refer to P. esolution Book.
?.ESOLUTION NO. 76R-73 - DEEDS OF BASE, tENT: A RESOLUTION OF ~IE CITY COUNCIL OF
T~E CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND OP~DERING Tt!EIR RECOP~DATIOI?.
(Early California Specialties Corporation; Sant/!Testern f~l; James Edward
:iazell; Fred i;. !Iauff; Reva M. Anderson)
XESOLU'iION .lO. 76R-74 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE~ WOPJ< ORDER NO. 760-A: A PdlSOLUTION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~E CITY OF ;C:AEEI}~ FINELY ACCEPTING k~IE CO}TLETION AND
t]JP/~ISHING OF ~L PL~TIT, LABOR, SERVICES, }~ATEEI~S ;liD EQUIP~T AND ALL
UTiLITII]S A'.ID T~NSPORTATIOi'~ INCLUDING PO!'~E, ~JEL AND !'ATER, AND ~IE PERFOR-
~TCE OF ALL ~'0~[ i7ECESSAPJ TO CONSTRUCT ;S~D COMPLETE ~iE FOLLO%.~NG PUBLIC
IHPROVEI~NT, TO WIT: EUCLID ~ENUE STOOl DP~E~ It~PROVE~NT~ FROM ~IEIM-
BAF~ER CITY ~!~NEL TO O~GEiTOOD AVENUE, !N THE CITY OF ~EIAI~IM, I~O~ OP~ER
760-A. (McGuire Construction, Inc.)
?~ESOLUTION NO. 76E-75 - FINAL ACCEPTAi~CE~ I,~OFd2 ORDER UO. 859: A RESOLUTION OF
Tile CITY COUNCIL OF TItE CITY OF ;C~AHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING TIlE CO}'~LETION ~ND
TiIE ~RNISiIING OF ALL PL;2!T, LABOR, SERVICES, b[ATERIALS Yd~D EQUIP~,~ENT ;~;D ;LL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING PO~.~E, FUEL ;2~D I~ATER, AND TIlE PERFOR-
manCE OF ALL UORK ~CESSARY TO CONSTRUCT .~,~D COMPLETE TIlE FOLLO~ING PUBLIC
I:{PROVZ~5~NT, TO UIT: TRAFFIC SI~]AL I[ODIFICATION AND SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLA-
TIO:; AT ~HE INTERSECTION OF ~qJCLID STREET ~]D ROHNEYA DELVE, IN ~{E CITY OF
Ai.~AilEII4, WOPd'. ORDER ~0. 259. (Baxter-Griffin Electrical Contractors)
RESOLUTIOU NO. 76R-76 - FINAL A.CCEPTA~CE! I~ORF. ORDER NO. 1255: A P~E$OLUTION OF
TIlE CITY CO'~CI'L--0F' 2i{E ~TY OF ;~A!IEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION ;aND
TIkE ~JPd.IIStiIiIG OF ALL PLA2IT, LABOR, SERVICES, ,~[ATERIALS AND EQUIPI~NT AND ALL
UTILITIES ~'~D TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POI~FER, FUEL kND I?ATER, AND ~-IE PERFOR-
fiANCE OF ALL I,"ORK iJECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT ;2ID CO~fl?LETE I/iE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IM?ROVEI~NT, TO WIT: ll. iE ~OIILER DRIVE AND COL~NTRY IIILL ROAD SEWER IMPROVE~fliNT,
IN T, IE CITY OF ;CIA/IEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1255. (Brage Construction Company,
Inc.)
~.ESOLUTION NO. 76R-77 - FINAL ACCEPTA~NCE~ WORK ORDER )~0. 1260: A P~SOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF %%{E CITY OF ;24A!IEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING ~IE COMPLETION ;2:D
TIiE FUIRIISHING OF ;~L PLAINT, LABOR, SERVICES, biATERIALS ;~D EQUIPM]iNT A3~D ALL
UTILITIES AND TRAi~SPORTATION INCLUDING POI~R, FUEL AND WATER, ;2'~D TIlE PERFOR-
~5%NCE OF ALL ~.70RK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT .MqD COMPLETE TIIE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVE}RiNT, TO %'7IT: Tile PERALTA HILLS DRIVE SEI~R IMPEOVE~_~NT, S/O LAiLEVIEW,
IN TilE CITY OF ;C~AIIEIM, 170Rtl ORDER NO. 1260. (Sal D. Espinoza)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL b~L3ERS: i'.aywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~%MBERS: iIone
Tl:e Hayer declared Resolution Nos. 762-73 through 76R-77, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
PUXCILASE OF SERVICES - REPOI.~RING .OF FIRE PUIfl?ER NO. 6611: The Assistant City
Hanager reported on the recon~nendation of the Fire Chief and Mechanical
}!aintenance Superintendent that the City repower Fire Pumper No. 6611 with a
diesel engine, rather than repair the existing gasoline-driven engine at an
estimated cost of $3,000 to $4,500 for the necessary repairs, lie reported on
76-143
City Hall~ Anaheim,.. California - COUNCIL ~'JUTES - February 17~ 19761 1:30
informal bids received for this repowering job and recommended that the low bid
submitted by Associated Diesel as follows be accepted:
Bid 17o. 3051 - Associated Diesel, $13,176.32, including tax and labor.
On mo[ion by Councilwoman t~aywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City
Council accepted the bid of Associated Diesel and authorized repowering of Fire
Pumper No. 6611 at a cost of $13,176.32, tax and labor included. HOTION
CAP~.IED.
.~RDIN~]CE NO. 3502: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance i~o. 3502 for adoption.
'lefer to Ordinance 5look.
~%~ ORDINAI~CE OF THE CITY OF ,~,NAIIEIM ~2~Ei,~DING TITLE 18 OF TIlE AI,~AIIEIM ~'~NICIPAL
CODE ?JJLATIi~G ~0 ZOi~I~]G. (70-71-49 (3), RS-5000)
2oll Call Vote:
AYES'. COUNCIL ~,~,~,~oc..~,~,~,o. Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
o~O~o. C( U,~CIL >%MBEKS. iEa~ood
~o~: COUNCIL }~-{BERE: iTone
The Mayor declared Ordinance ilo. 3502 duly passed and adopted.
· .OP~Ii,:Ai~C% ~;O. 3506: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance ~:o. 3506 for adoption.
",efer to Ordinance ~ook.
~T~ ORDINAiqCE OF ~IE CITY OF ANAtlUEIM REPEALING TITLE 6, CIiAPTER 6.95 OF THE
~2~AiIEI:[ >~UNICIPAL CODE °aqLATING TO PUBLIC ]iEALTiI Ai~D SAFETY AND ADDING CHAPTER
6.95 Ii'! ITS PLACE. (To delete the word "Farm")
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, SneegaS and Thom
]:OES: COUNCIL ~'~MBERS: l~one
ABSEi~: COUNCIL ~'~Z~{BERS: None
The '~-layor declared Ordinance ~o. 3506 duly passed and adopted.
O%DIi~ANCE i~O. 3507: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance 'Jo. 3507 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
A~: ORDINAE~CE OF TIlE CITY OF A]]AIIEIM REPEALINC SECTIONS 18.01.090 f~]D
18.02,052.040 OF %~{E ~;JIEI~! ,~.~o/JICIPAL CODE ~,~D ADDING '~EW SECTIONS 18.01.090
A2;D 18 . 02 . 952 . 040 IN THEIR PLACE, (Home Occupations - Conditions and
Limit at ions )
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ~.~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
.WOES: COUNCIL ~ERS:
ABSEi~: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3507 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINA~CE NO. 3508: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance :':o. 3508 for adoption.
]lefer to Ordinance Book.
;~; ORDINANCE OF %qIE CITY OF ;~NmmIM A~mNDING TITLE 18 OF ~{E ;2']mlEI,! ~,~ICIPAL
CODE ~iLATING TO ZONING. (72-73-49 (1), CL)
Xoll Call Vote:
76_144," ~ .~-
City Hall, AnaheimI C...a...lifornia- ..COUNCIL MINUTES- February 17; .1976.,. 1:30 P.M,
AYES; COUNCIL I~MBERS; liaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
i.~OIiS: COUNCIL ~MBERS: ~one
ABSEi4T: COIPlCIL ~IIBERS; l~one
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3508 duly passed and adopted.
9RDIiIAi~CI] UO. 3509; Councilman Thom offered Ordinance ?Io. 3509 for adoption.
%efer to Ordinance
AX ORDINAl{CE OF TIlE CITY OF AE~AI[EIM A~NDIE~G TITLE 1~ OF 2]IE ANAtlEIM ML.~ICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-42, P~-1200)
~oll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ~EMBERS; iiaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Snee§as and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ~.~I[BERS: l.~one
ABSEiiT: COIRtCIL }~MBERS: ilone
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3509 duly passed and adopted.
ORDI~.I~ICE iiO. 3510; Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance Iio. 3510 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance ~ook.
AX ORDINAiqCE OF THE CITY nF P~q)dtEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF TIlE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE ~LATI~'IG TO ZOi~IING. (75-76-11, P~{-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL }'~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
i'iOES: COUNCIL ~'.%~h3ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~qEMBEP~S: ~4one
The ~,{ayor declared Ordinance ~!o. 3510 duly passed and adopted.
APPOINTMFE~T - A}~IN DAVIDt g?~DJ.l~I~! LIBRARY I{OARD. On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council appointed Mr. Amin David,
419 South Colt Avenue, to the Anaheim Library Board of Trustees to fill the
unexpired term of Darrell F. Hoover, term ending June 30, 1978. }!OTION
CARRIED.
%ECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION; Councilman rebley moved to recess ~o Executive
Session. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. ~.[OTIOi~ CARRIED. (5:08
AFTER PdZCESS: }~yor Thom called the meeting to order, all ~lembers of the City
Council being present. (5:49 P.M.)
ADJOURE~q,IENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. I[OTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:50 P.Ii.
ALONA I,I. tlOUGARD, CITY CLERK
By~~.~Deputy