1976/12/0776-916 ·
City. Hall. A. naheim, _California - C0.~.. CI,,~, M. IN~gS 7~,,D~c?~,~r 7., 197,6,.~ ,1.7.30_ ,P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kay~od, Sey~mr, Kott, Roth and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. H~kins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James P. M~ox
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Romald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR- ZONING: Annika Santalahti
FIRE CHIEF: James W. Riley
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance
to the Council meeting.
MOUNT OF,S,!,,LENCE' Mayor Thom requested that a moment of silence be observed in
com~emoration of those who gave their lives for their country on December 7. 1941.
FLA~G SALUTE- Councilman John Seymour led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
~RE_SOLI~I ,ON,,OF C, ONG .RA,.TU ,LA,TIO~. S' A reeolutic~ of congratulations was uanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to the City of Placentia on the occasion
of their 50th anniversary of incorporation as a city.
MINUTES· Approval of minutes was deferred one week.
WAIVER O.F ..REA. DING - ORDINANCES AND RES0~U~IQNS- Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive
the reading in full of ail 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 Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
F~ANC. IAL DEMAND~ AGAINST T_HE CITy' Financial demands against the City in the amount
of $739.716.91 in accordance with the 1~76-77 BmdSet were approved.
PEDEST.RIAN CRQS.SING. AT EUCL..ID ~BRA~_ C.H L.!.~RA~ Ry' Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz of the Library
Board explained that the expertise of the Boar4 did not extend to traffic safety, but
it would be remiss for them not to inform th~ Council of the concern of the residents
for a safe pedestrian crossing ~n Euclid Street in the vicimity of the Branch Library.
The Mayor referred to memorandum dated N®vember 16. 1976 from Traffic Engineering
wherein two methods of signalization were pr~osmd if the Council approved, the second
method being a standard mid-block pedestri&n cress~mlk signal.
Mrs. Schultz was of the ,opinion that a standard signal would be the optimum recourse.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that one of the problems in trying to signal-
ize a crosswalk directly in fro~t of the Library would be that no gas tax funds could
be used for that purpose. However. by removing the two unprotected crosswalks on
Euclid and combining the crossings at Palais with a signal, minimum warrants could
be met. thereby qualifying the project for gas~,tax funding.
Councilman Seymour stated that although the situation was not ideal, he favored
signalization at Palais Street, even though it was approximately 300 feet south of
the Euclid Street Branch Library. He indicated there was also citizen support for
the proposed signal at Palais determi~ by discussions he had with women who were
involved with Trident School activities.
Further discussion indicated the need to emphasize to area residents the utilization
of the proposed signal. Mrs. Schultz expressed her willingness to cooperate in any
way possible and explained that she had been in contact with a member of the Clara
Barton PTA who indicated their organization would ask peol01e in the area tQ utilize
whatever method the Council approved for safely crossing Euclid.
· 76-917
Ci~ty Hall, Anahei,m,. Ca!if?r. nia.' - CO~UN~C..IL MIN. U.T..ES - D. ecem. b.~er 7~ 1976, 1'30 _P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a standard mid-
block pedestrian crosswalk signal at Palais Street was approved, as well as the
removal of the unprotected crosswalk on Euclid Street to the south above Cerritos.
MOT ION CARRIED.
Mr. Singer explained that the foregoing approval would take another signal location
completely out of priority causing realignment of such priorities.
Relative to the input he received from concerned parents, Councilman Roth stressed
the need for signalization at that location as quickly as possible to preclude any
accidents and to eliminate the hazardous condition now existing. In his opinion,
therefore, realignment of priorities was imperative.
COUNTY-WIDE PA .RAMEDIC SERVICE PLAN- City .Manager Talley explained, that at the request
of Councilwoman Kaywood, Fire Chief Riley prepared the detailed and comprehensive
report dated December 4, 1976 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) submitted to the
Council discussion each of the eight points which were developed for review by all
cities in Orange County relative to the subject proposed plan.
Fire Chief Riley stated that he prepared the report with the view in mind that it was
necessary for the formation of a position statement by the City to be presented at
the Orange County League of California Cities Executive Board Meeting on Thursday,
December 9, 1976. Chief Riley then briefed the Council on his report.
Councilman Roth inquired as to which of the eight proposed position statements the
Fire Chief recommended.
Chief Riley stated that the City should vote in favor of all eight position statements,
but if there were comments in opposition, it should be indicated 'that the City was
voting in favor of the plan, but with opposing comments.
Councilman Kott indicated that since the report was just received at the beginning of
the meeting, there was not sufficient opportunity to evaluate its contents.
Councilman Seymour expressed a concern relative to the proposed tax area to support
County-wide paramedic service. It was his opinion that the levy of 10 cents on the
tax rate, if there was County-wide voter approval, would amount to $800,000 for the
City of Anaheim, thereby doubling the cost for the City's paramedic service. He
stated that since the City was responsible for providing the best possible paramedic
service at the least possible cost, he could not support a position that would increase
this cost in order to provide paramedics to cities who did not have such services. He,
instead, supported the philosophy that existing agreements with neighboring cities
providing needed services were sufficient without having to share the tax pool as well.
Mayor Thom and Councilman Roth agreed with Councilman Seymour's assessment of the
matter.
Chief Riley explained that the intent of the County-wide paramedics program was to
provide an equal level of service throughout the total County area without regard to
jurisdiction, along with the methodology to finance this service, such as an overall
tax, thereby, availing paramedic service to the citizen of Anaheim, not only within the
City, but also wherever, the citizen might need such service anywhere in the County.
The Mayor indicated sufficient input was received.
By general Council consent, the report was received and filed.
FI.RE AND .pARAMEDIC .SERVICES TO UNINCORPORATED AREAS: Chief Riley referred to his
report dated November 23, 1976 with attachments (on file in the City Clerk's Office)
explaining in detail the proposed contractual agreement with the County to provide
fire protection services to the '~aza Strip"and other unincorporated County areas as
a result of reassignment of the fire contract to the Anaheim Fire Department from the
Stanton Fire Department should Council approve. He also indicated that paramedic ser-
vice only would be provided immediately in the area specified, but beginning 3uly 1,
1977, the service would be expanded to include the full range of services (fire
suppression and paramedic), should the proposed resolution be approved.
76-91_8
_City Hal.l, Anaheim, ~Cal.i. fornia -~ COUNCIL M.!NUTES - December 7, 1976~. 1'30 P,M,
Chief Riley then briefed the Council on his report at the close of which he
stated that the Anaheim Fire Department could provide the subject services without
additional cost for new stations or manpower, while at the same time bringing in a
revenue to the City of approximately $50,000 a year. He, therefore, recommended that
the proposed plan be adopted.
Discussion followed relative to the structural Fire ~rotection Tax Rate and its
relation to the percentage of payments that would be derived by the City for provid-
ing the subject services.
Councilman Seymour was concerned over the cost effectiveness of the program and the
precedent that would be set by selling one of the City's services to a territory that
should logically be a part of the City of Anaheim. Previous invitations for annexa-
tion of the unincorporated area in question were turned down, indicating that the
residents, although they want paramedic service, were not willing to pay for parks,
libraries, police or other facilities and services.
Councilman Seymour asked that the entire matter be referred back to the City Manager
to determine the feasibility of the potential annexation of portions of the "Gaza Strip"
the City would choose to serve. He contended-if the residents wanted the service, then
they should become part of the City, having a right to all services, but with a sharing
of taxes along with all other taxpayers of the City.
MOTION' ~ouncilman Seymour moved that the City Manager report back in thirty days
on the possibility of annexation of those unincorporated portions of the "Gaza Strip"
which the City would choose to serve.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley requested that he not be bound by the
30-day time limit but, instead, provide interim reports due to the time implications
involved in working with the people in the subject area.
Councilman Seymour amended his motion to include Mr. Talley's request, along with the
request of the Mayor that as part of the motion, note that no action was taken by the
Council on the report dated November 23, 1976 by Fire Chief Riley. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ORANGE UNI..FIED SCHOOL. DISTRICT - JOINT USE AGREEMENT- (Rescinding Resolution No.
76R-597 and entering into a-Joint Use Agreement for construction of a park at
Crescent Elementary School - Canyon Site I Park, Pinney and Gerda Drive~) Pursuant
to report and recommendations in memorandum dated November 29, 1976 from James D. Ruth,
Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
76R-770 and 76R-771 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTI.ON. NO. 76.R~-_7_70- A RESOLUTION OF T~IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-597o
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-7~7_]- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A PARK AT CRESCENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES. COUNC IL MEMBERS. None
ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 76R-770 and 76R-771 duly passed and adopted.
CREATION OF CIVILIAN JOB IDENTIFICATION CLA. S.SES. Councilman Roth offered Resolution
No. 76R-772 for adoption,creating civilian job identification classes, as recommended
in report dated November 30, 1976, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution
Book.
76-919
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, .!976, 1:30 P,M,
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-772' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-680 AND ESTABLISHING NEW JOB CLASSES AND RATES OF PAY.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-772 duly passed and adopted.
LIFE INSURANCE - MANAGEMENT AND _MANAG_EMENT STAF~ EMPLOYEES' On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, a proposed change to the life insurance program
for the subject employees enabling these employees to purchase additional term life
insurance effective January 8, 1977, at no cost to the City, as recommended in memo-
randum dated November 15, 1976 by the Personnel Director, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
NEW PR0. C.EDURES FOR EXPEp!T!NC PR~O~ES_S_ING OF DEVELOPMENT_ P. LANS' City Manager Talley
referred to the joint report dated December 1, 1976, from the City Attorney, Engineering
Division and the Planning Department relative to new procedures for expediting the
processing of development plans. He explained that the proposed changes were being
recommended as the result of the ad hoc Task Force suggested and led by Councilman
Seymour. Mr. Talley requested affirmation of the procedures, as outlined, and
indicated implementation could begin immediately.
Mayor Thom inquired as to the legal liability relative to a private engineer's certi-
fication of plans, as suggested in Item 5, Page 3, of the subject report. He favored
accelerating the procedure as long as the City was not open to any jeopardy, imminent
or apparent.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated there was a possibility that the City could be involved
in a lawsuit. City Engineer Maddox stated, however, that the four preceding methods
for handling backlog situations,as outlined in the report, would more than likely be
sufficient in all cases.
Councilwoman Kaywood was opposed to reducing the extent of checking to provide mini-
mum checking of plans (Item 3, Page 3) and, instead, wanted it increased.
Councilman Seymour explained that the procedure was not new and one which had been
used in a judicious fashion by staff for a number of years when dealing with people
well known to the City. In other instances, the checking procedure was more complete.
Councilman Seymour stated that he strongly supported the recommendation. While the
City had to maintain high standards of development and concern for the environment,
at the same tim~ it needed to cut red tape to speed developments through. In the
final analysis, it would assist the consumer.
Councilwoman Kaywood, however, was opposed to using consultants to provide checking
should the need arise, because there was no way to know how competent they were.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the new procedures for
expediting processing of development plans, as outlined in the joint report by the
City Attorney, Engineering Division and Planning Department dated December 1, 1976,
was approved. To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
pIPELINE LICENSE - ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAP_ COMPANY- (Pacifico and
State College improvement, Work Order No. 796-A.) On recommendation of the City
Engineer in his memorandum dated November 29, 1976,. that execution of the Pipe Line
License be authorized, and payment of the $150 license fee and the estimated reloca-
tion cost be approved, Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 76R-773 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
_RESOLUTION NO. 76R.-77...3..' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. (30-INCH STORM DRAIN)
76-920 ·
_City Hall, Anaheim,. Ca~li. fornia - COUNCiL MINUTES __ December 7, 1976, 1-30 P..M,
Roll Call Vote-
AYES · COUNCIL MEMBERS · Kaywood, Seymour, Kote, Roth and Thom
NOES. COUNCIL MEMBERS. None
ABSENT. COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-773 duly passed and adopted.
_DEDICATION AND IM~__RO~~NT- 0F PENHALL WAY- Councilman Thom offered Resolution No.
76R-774 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
_RESOLUTION NO. 76R-774- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES BORAX AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, ROBERT-
SHAW CONTROLS COMPANY AND ROGER C. AND ANN R. STULL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
ROADWAY ON CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND AUTHORIZING 'THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Penhall Way)
Roll Call Vote-
AYES- COUNCIL~ MEMBERS- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS. None
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-774 duly passed and adopted.
ABSTENTION- Councilman Roth stated that he was abstaining from discussion and voting
on the following four agreements involving the Anaheim Hills area since he would
soon become a resident of the area.
REIMBURSEMENT ~FOR SPECIAL WATER FACILITY- TE .XACO-ANAHEIM HILLS'_ (Hidden Canyon
Reservoir and Pumping Station - Tract 8513, 8-515, 851-6, 7587 and 8075) Councilman
Kott: offered Resolution No. 76R-775 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO_. 76R-7_7_5- A RESOLUTION'OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS,
INC., AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE COSTS AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR
A SPECIAL WATER FACILITY NAMED HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR AND PUMP~ING STATION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Tract Nos. 8513,
g5t5, 8516, 7587 and 8075)
Roll Call Vote-
AYES- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES- None
ABSTAINED. Roth'
ABSENT' None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-775 duly passed and adopted.
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINE.ERIN~G SERVICES__- BOYLE ENGINEERING- (Design of Hidden Canyon
Reservoir and Pumping Station-) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 76R-776 for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-776. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES REGARDING DESIGN OF A TWO MILLION GALLON RESERVOIR AND
COMBINED 1120 AND 1320 FOOT PUMPING STATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote-
AYES. Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES- None
ABSTAINED. Roth
ABSENT' None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-776 duly passed and adopted.
76-921
C_~ity Hall~ Anaheim, ~Cali.forni_a__-' C_0uNCI_L~ MIN~UTE.SL- De.c_e_mber .7, 1976, 1_:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the contractor was
author'[zed to comp'iete Items 1, 2, 3 and 4, as outlined on Page 5 of the Agreement
covering engineering services for the reservoir up to and including the EIRo
Councilman Roth abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WATER FACILITY- ROBERT P. WARMINGTON' (Tracts 8.463 and 8466)
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 76R-777 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-777' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ROBERT P.
WARMINGTON COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR SPECIAL WATER
FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES' None
ABSTAINED- Roth
ABSENT- None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-777 duly passed and adopted.
REIbIBURSEMENT FOR WATER FACILITY - TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS' (Eract 9465) Councilman
Kott offered Resolution No. 76R-778 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-778- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
,
APPROVING THE TE~MS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TEXACO ANAHEIM
HILLS, INC. RE REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR SPECIAL WATER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES' None
ABSTAINED- Roth
ABSENT' None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-778 duly passed and adopted.
FINAL MAP, T .RACT NO. 9287' (Developer, Casa Bonita Construction Company) Tract
located on Waverly Drive, north of Orangewood Avenue, containing six proposed
RS-7200 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the proposed subdivi-
sion, together with its design and improvements, was found to be consistent with the
City's General Plan and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 9287, as
recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated November 24, 1976. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINAL MAP~ TRA~ NO. 84~3. (Developer, Anaheim Hills, Inc.) Tract located south of
Canyon Rim Road and northwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir, containing 43 proposed
RS-HS-10,000 (SC) moned lots.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposed subdi-
vision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the
City's General Plan and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No 8463, as recom-
mended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 1, 1976. MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 8466' (Developer, Robert P. Warmington Company) Tract located
on the south side of Canyon Rim Road and northwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir,
containing 26 proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposed subdivision,
together with its design and improvements, wa8 found to be consistent with the City'~
General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 8466, as recomme6ded by
the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 1, 1976. MOTION CARRIED.
76-9 2'2 '
~ A~aheim California- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7 1976 1:30 P.M.
MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9465' (Texaco
Anaheim Hills) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-779 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO_. 76R-779' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. MODIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9465 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~
Roll Call Vote'
AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS. Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS. None
ABSENT. COUNCIL MBMBERS. None
The Mayor declared R~solution No. 76R-779 duly passed and adopte~.
~FINAL.. MAP~ TRACT NO. 9465' (Developer, Anaheim Hills, Inc.) Tract located south
of Canyon Rim Road and northwest of Walnut Ca~yon Reservoir, containing 60 proposed
RS-~iS-10,000(SC) zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilmmn Roth, the proposed subdivi-
sion, together with its design and improvements, was found to be consistent with the
City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 9465, as
recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 1 1976 MOTION
CARRIED. ' ·
CONSIDERATION O_F LBUD..GET' REDUCTION.s. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilwoman Kaywood, the consideration of budget reduction to compensate for the
addition of two Billing Clerks in the Utilities Department was continued to
December 14, 1976, as requested by 'the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
C--ONDEMNAT_ION .P. ROCEEDINGS - BURREL STORM DRAIN- (Tract No. 7565 and 9268) On motion
by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to
retain Mr. J~hm }L Daws~ as legal counsel relative to condemnation action requested by
Anaheim Hills and as agreed to by the City to acquire necessary easements for the
construction of the Burrel Storm Drain. MOTION CARRIED.
_AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA DENTAL SERVICE- Councilm~a~tt stated that
relative to his recomme~Hation at the-mee'ting o'f-N0'v~mber 30, 1976, ~a~.ifornia Dental
Service had con~nunicated with various employee groups throughout the Ci~'~i. ndicating
that he was trying to eliminate employee dental coverage. He stressed tha'~'?~..in fact,
he was attempting to secure better coverage for the employees. He was of the'~'~inion
that it was possible to obtain an insurance company who not only could conduct
selves in a professional manner, but also eliminate a number of problems that ~'~ ......
users have experienced under the present plan. He emphasized that the activities
of CDS were something he couldn't condone.
_
MOT. ION- Councilman Kott moved that staff be instructed to solicit additional bids
regarding the dental contract for City employees, as well as the feasibility of
instituting a self-insured program. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Before a vote wa~ taken on the foregoing motion, Mayor Thom stated that' his concerns
regarding CDS went back a couple of years. He then offered an amendment to the motion
to include the solicitation of conmaents on the different proposals from City employee
associations, the Orange County Dental Association, as well as staff evaluation, so
that any decision made would be in the best interest of the City and the employees.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired as to the affect such action would have on the present
Memorandums of Understanding. City Manager Talley explained that as long as the same
service was provided, it would not affect the M.emorandur~ of Understanding, but if it
were different, then discussions would have to take place with the employee groups
to assure them nothing would be changed to their detriment.
For the benefit of those representatives present at the meeting, Councilman Roth
assured them that the level of dental care was going to be the same or better.
Mayor Thom confirmed that Councilman Kott's thrust was that employees could get the
same level of care for the same expenditure, or lems.
76-923
City Hall, Anaheim,~ Cal_i_.fornia' -..cp~uNC..I.L MIN~UT.ES -_ _D. ecember 7, ~197.6~. 1:3.0 P,M,
Mr. John O'Malley, staff representative of AMEA, appreciated the action of the
Council in not accepting the proposed amendment to the dental agreement because he
viewed them as being detrimental in terms of service, and AMEA was prepared to
object to a "Yes" vote. He also clarified that Councilman Kott never attempted to
influence their group regarding the program, one way or the other.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion as amended and articulated by Councilman
Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
AWARD ...O..F WORK .ORDER NO. 880' In accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer,
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-780 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
_RESOLUTION NO... 76R_-780; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER
FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT' PEARSON
PARK THEATRE SEATING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 880.
(Herk Edwards - ~51,180. 00)
Roll Call Vote.
AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES- COLrNC IL MEMBERS- None
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-780 duly passed and adopted.
AWARD 0F WORK ORDER N0.__794· In accordance with the recommendations of the City
Engineer, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-781 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION .NO?_ 76~-781' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER
FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: MANZANITA
PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 7~4. (Sully-
Miller Contracting Company- $3,591.00)
Roll Call Vote-
AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS. None
ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared R~solution No. 76R-781 duly passed and adopted.
_PURCHASE OF_ EQUIPMENT - 69 KV CIRCUIT BREAKERS - BID NO. 3139' Relative to the
subject Purchase, Councilman Kott questioned 1) the indication and memorandum of
November 23, 1976 from the Purchasing Agent for "not firm prices", 2) whether or not
all bidders bid under the same specifications, and 3) if all bids were received within
the specified time.
City Manager Talley explained that all bids received were based upon a price of July 15,
1976, times whatever the Consumer Price Index escalates to until delivery; that all com-
panies did bid under the same specifications with the same price escalation; and that
all bids were received within the specified time. He stated that-the Allis-Chalmers bid
was the lowest and their delivery date the earliest, so that under either evaluation,
they offered the lowest price to the City.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of Allis-
Chalmers 'Manufacturing Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of
$40,689.16, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum
dated November 23, 1976. MOTION CARRIED. '
76-924
City Hall,_.~Lnaheim, .California -,COUNCIL MINUTES - pecember 7, .!.976, 1:30 P,M,
_PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT -_DUCTILE IRON. PIPE - BID .N_OS, 3138 AND 3157' On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of P--acific States Cast Iron
Pipe was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $52,994.70, including tax,
as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated November 23, 1976.
MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - PAINTING OF SCOR_EBOAR_D .AND_ VIEW .LEVEL AT STADIUM - BID NO. 3145'
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of
G. C. Hewitt Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $51,465.00,
as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated November 30, 1976.
MOT ION CARRIED.
RECESS' By general consent the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2'50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS' Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council 'Members being
present. (3'00 P.M.)
CONTIN_UED PUBL. IC HEAR_ING -.........VARIANCE NO. 2855' Application submitted by Bren Development
Company; Santa Ana Valley Irrigation CoCa, y; Edna Bernardo and Jack Yorba, to
construct a commercial center on 5 acres of CL(SC) zoned property located at the north-
west corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway with Code waivers of'
a) permitted signing.
b) building setback from expressway.
c) building setback from local street.
d) required landscaping.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-197, reported that the
project was found to be substantially in accordance with a project previously approved
under EIR No. 104, and further recommended that Variance No. 1855 be denied.
The denial of Variance No. 2855 was appealed by Bren Development Company, agents, public
hearing scheduled for, and continued from, November 23, 1976, to this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City
Planning Commission. .
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent wished to speak.
Mr. Eugene Geritz of SGPA Planning and Architecture, 440 Ubas Street, San Diego,
agent, spoke on behalf of the developers and owners. He depicted from a map the proposed
project to consist of a UCB financial institution, small shops, and a restaurant and
explained that because of the irregular configuration of the site, variances were
requested to compensate for the irregularities. He elaborated on the initially
requested variances and indicated further that a couple of eucalyptus trees were going
to be removed from the grove at the rea~ of the property along Old Santa Aha Canyon
Road. He further explained that relative to the design of the center, which would
be very heavily landscaped, they first proposed to use staggered buildings in order to
achieve a low-scale type of development. Based upon a meeting with the City Planning
Commission, they resubmitted a plan asking for no variances. The revised plans did
not change the visual effect of the financial institution or the restaurant. The
major change, however, was that the shopping complex became more of a lengthy situa-
tion, and instead of circulation around the financial institution at the far end of
the complex, it became a straight line consideration, in o~der Go stay in the
required setback. Mr. Geritz showed an illustration of the effect from a
diagram of the revised scheme.
Mr. Geritz further indicated that the financial institution was the major setback
request - instead of the required 100-foot setback, a 50-foot setback was requested
with 50 feet of landscaping. He stressed that due to the unusual nature of the site,
both from a City standpoint and a development standpoint, a visually more pleasing
development with more landscaping would be obtained if the one variance were granted
relative to the financial institution. He explained that they could live with
either scheme, but the latter was more desirable. Mr. Geritz also confirmed for-
Councilman Roth that all requests for variances had been withdrawn, but he was
requesting Council's consideration to grant the variance to allow the financial
building to project 50 feet into the required setback. This was the variance
originally requested under waiver "b".
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if all other properties surrounding the proposed project
were owned by the same people.
76-925
C_it¥ LHall, An_aheim, California.- CO .UNCIL MINU. TES - December._ 7, 1976, 1.'30 P.M.
Mr. Geritz stated they were not owned by the same people but were an assemblage of
three different, ~eparat~ piece~ of property.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard, either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz Street, President of Santa Ana Canyon Improvement
Association, stated that she and her association were not in favor of Variance
No. 2855 for the following reasons- 1) the internal traffic circulation of the
project was poor, 2) the location of trash pick-up would turn a portion of Old
Santa Ana Canyon Road into an alley, 3) noise and trucks would impact the single-
family residents to the north, 4) additional traffic would be hazardous to children
walking to and from schools in the vicinity, 5) Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway could not support additional traffic, 6) all Scenic Corridor Overlay ordinances
regarding setbacks, landscaping and signing must be enforced, 7) lack of information
regarding tenants and hours of operation, and 8) the effect of lighting on single-
family residents to the north.
Mrs. Dinndorf explained that in their opinion, the center was poorly planned and
the applicants were trying to get too much on too little land. She stated that the
already existing commercial centers were adequate for the needs of the residents in
the area, and their basic concern was that too much commercial was being permitted in
the vicinity of Santa Ana Canyon, Imperial and La Palina. She also indicated that it
was a speculative commercial project that would not be self-supporting and req~ested
denial of the center.
The Mayor clarified that one variance was still being considered relative to the
setback for the financial institution.
Additionally, the following people spoke in opposition to the proposed project because
of the below-listed reasons- Mr. Earl McManus, 5581 Edgemar; Mrs. Norma Clements,
5568 Edgemar; Mr. Frank Harris, 5580 Edgemar~ and Mrs. Rachel McManus, 5581 Edgemar;
additional traffic hazard affecting children in the area; too much building put into
the property; invasion of privacy into backyards of single-family residences to the
north from the proposed two-story restaurant; displacement of historical marker;
possibility of liquor being served in the restaurant; blind access to Santa Ana Canyon
Road; removal of trees; creation of an alley behind the proposed development; 6-foot
wall not high enough to insure privacy; not enough p.eople to support additional
shopping centers; poor ingress and egress from residential area, and general opposi-
tion to commercial utilization of the land.
A petition requesting denial of Variance No. 2855 was also submitted signed by 157
residents of the immediate area.
The following people spoke in favor of the proposed project because of the below-
listed reasons. Dan Martinez~, 5910 Cam~no Men~ang; gi~hard Raamu~sen~ 5929 C~mino
Menzano; Eddie Chiaverini, 5946 Camino Menzano; advantageous for residents to have
more commercial developments in the area and availability of a nice place to eat.
A petition in favor of the proposed shopping center was submitted containing 100
signature s.
In answer to Mrs. Clements' concern that those in favor were not 'from the immediate
area, the Mayor explained that the Council was able to assess the value of the
addresses on the petition submitted.
It was established that there were nine people in the Council Chamber opposed to
V~riance No. 2855, and six people in favor.
To allay the concerns of the residents, Mr. Geritz explained the following. 1) a new
street tied to the development of the property would be constructed to the west with
a signalized intersection, thereby also providing an additional access to the resi-
dential area, 2) Old Santa Ana Canyon Road at Imperial was abandoned by the City because
76-926 ·
City _Hall, Anaheim._ _C~li_fornia-_ _c_ouNcIL_MINUTES - D..e~_emb. er 7, 1976, !:.30 P,M.
it was a traffic hazard; therefore, it had no bearing on the variance; 3) there would
be no two-story buildings, even though three stories would be allowed; 4) the pro-
posed development was extremely low in density with a high density of landscaping; 5)
low-level lighting standards would be utilized, thereby precluding light intrusion into
the residential area; 6) since the area was an extremely successful one residentially,
there was a solid market for commercial development; 7) there was a very heavily
protected method of trash pick-up, and 8) the historical marker would be located in
a seating area as it was considered proper to incorporate it into the development.
Mr. Geritz reiterated that the reason he came to the Council with two plans was to
show that they could develop without variances, but that a more pleasing development
would be created if the one variance granting the 50-foot setback relative to the
financial institution was granted.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired as to whether or not the applicant had specific tenants
in mind for the center and also the hours of operation.
Mr. Geritz explained that Coldwell Banker was involved in the leasing of the build-
ings on a tentative basis and that relative to hours of operation, these would be
governed by the Scenic Corridor Ordinance.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
For the purpose of clarification, the Mayor emphasized that the only matter under
consideration was the variance, and whether the property would be used commercially
or not had already been determined some time ago under a resolution of intent.
Thereby, the developer could proceed legally to develop the center as proposed, as
long as site development standards were met. The only item presently under considera-
tion was waiver "b", building setback from expressway, the expressway being Santa Aha
Canyon Road.
EN_VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT- On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the City Council finds that the proposed project is substantially in
accordance with the project previously approved under Environmental Impact Report
No. 104. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Roth explained for the people in the Council Chamber that in
the event the Council did not permit at least the requested variance, waiver "b" that
density could be increased without further Council action, and in the final analysis,
it would be better to accept the proposed plan with the one requested variance.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed that the design incorporati~ig the one requested variance
would be better for the residents. Councilman Roth thereupon offered a resolution
granting__~ Variance No. 2855, waiver "b", only, subjeCt to the inter-departmental
recommendations.
The resolution failed to carry by the following vote-
AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood and Roth
NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS. Seymour, Kott and Thom
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-782 for adoption denying Variance No.
2855,upholding the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-782' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2855.
Roll Call Vote-
AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES. COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood and Roth
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-782 duly passed and adopted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-3 AND VARIANCE NO. 2825. ~Applica-
t ion by~ John~ V. and Helen ~M. Thompson for a change in zone from RS-A-43',000 to P~'I-1200,
to construct a 176-unit apartment complex on property located on. the north Side of
76-927
~Cit¥ Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December _7, 1976. 1:30 P.M.
Orangewood Avenue, approximately 650 feet east of Harbor Boulevard with the following
Code waivers'
a) maximum building height (unnecessary).
b) required site screening (unnecessary).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-136, recommended that
the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, pur-
suant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and, further,
recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-3 be approved subject to the following
conditions, and terminated Variance No. 2825'
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 Orangewood Avenue
and 50 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Clementine Street
(Troy Street) for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Orangewood Avenue
and Clementine Street (Troy Street), including preparation of improvement plans and
installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grad-
ing 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 Orangewood Avenue and Clementine Street (Troy Street) 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; or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City
to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum
of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Orangewood Avenue and Clementine Street
(Troy Street) for tree planting purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on
file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. 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.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the configuration of the proposed
easterly entrance to subject property from Clementine Street (Troy Street) shall be
widened to forty (40) feet, including a raised median, and constructed similarly to
the main entrance on Orangewood Avenue and providing an increased turning radium
for entering vehicles, and plans for said redesigned entrance shall be submitted to the
City Traffic Engineer for approval, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
9. That the owner 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.
10o Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition
Nos. 1, 2 and 3, 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.
11o That Condition Nos. 4, 6 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections. .
76-928
.C. itY .Hall, Anaheim, .C. alif_ornia ~.._ qO~UNCIL ~IN_UT~ES- - p.ec_embe_r 7, 1976, 1-30_ P.M._
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City
Planning Commission, and further explained that the report covered both Reclassifica-
tion No. 76-77-3, as well as Reclassification No. 76-77-24, the next item on the
Agenda, since both sites covered two adjacent parcels of land.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicants agent was present and wished to be
heard.
Richard G. McMillen, Hester Development Company, 1451 Quail Street, Newport Beach
explained that he was acting as agent for both John and Helen Thompson, and Elbert E.
and Rhea Landes, owners of the property under consideration. He pointed out that the
indication of twenty six (26) units per acre as noted by the Planning Commission should
be changed to 23.37 units per acre, otherwise he was satisfied with the recommendations
of the Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition ~o both
Reclassification No. 76-77-3 and Reclassification No. 76-77-24; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT- NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Roth, 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. To this motion Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
MOT ION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-783 for adoption authorizing the prep-
ara~ion of the necessary ordinance changing t~e zone as requested subject to the con-
ditions recommended by the City Planning Commission and Resolution No. 76R-784 terminat-
ing Variance No. 2825.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-783' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(76-77-3, RM-1200)
_RESOLUTION. ,N,O. 76R.-784' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING VARIANCE NO. 2825.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS. Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS None
The Mayor declared Resolution No~. 76R-783 and 76R-784 duly passed and adopted.
_PUBLIC HE...A. RING-~RECL$. SSIFICATION 76-77.-2.4' Application by Elbert E. and Rhea D. Landes, Jr
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, on property located at 421 W. Orange-
wood Avenue. ~.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-235 recommended that
the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and further recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-24 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on
file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
2. 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 struc-
tural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That a six-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north and west
property lines.
76-929
City Hall, An_aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES .- December 7, !976~ 1'30 P.M.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the ap-
propriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time that the building permit is
issued.
7. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Miss Santalahti had described the location and surrounding land uses. She °utlined the
findings given in the staff report submitted to and considered by the City Planning
Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION' On motion by Councilman Seymour,
,. ~
_ __
seconded by Councilman Roth 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. To this motion Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No"
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-785 for adoption authorizing the prepara-
tion o~f the necessary ordinance changing the zone as'requested subject to the condi-
tions recommended by the City Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-785' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(76-77-24, ~M- 1200)
Roll Call Vote'
AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-785 to be passed and adopted.
PUBLIC ~.HEARIN. G ~- RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-100 (RE_ADV)' AppliCation by Anaheim
Plaza Limited, CO zoned property located east of Fairhaven Street and north of
Westmont Drive, to consider amendment to conditions regarding construction of a six-
foot masonry wall.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-234 reported that the
Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the defi-
nition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the require-
ments for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the requirement to file an EIR and, further, recommended disapproval of the
requested amendment to Resolution No. 68-69-100, and closure by December 24, 1976,
of the existing opening in the required wall.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings given in the Staff Report which was submitted to and considered by the
City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and wished to
address the Council; there being no response, he asked if'anyone else wished to speak.
Mr. Robert C. Evans, 2660 Cornell stated that he was the absentee owner of the prop-
erty at 507 N. Fairhaven Street. He explained that the opening in the wall was done
arbitrarily and unnecessarily because more than adequate parking existed on the
property based on what he found at different times on given days and, if necessary,
additional parking was available on the east side of Euclid Street. He pointed out
that there were, in fact, three entrances to the subject parking lot on Euclid,
Westmont and Crescent and not one, as previously stated by the Petitioner. He con-
tended that by parking on Fairhaven the residential area was being violated and'he
requested that the wall being used in so doing be properly closed.
There being no further persons who wished to steak, the Mayor closed the Public
Hearing. ~
76-930 '
C$.ty .Hall, Anaheim, _California_ - COUNCIL ..MI_N ..UTES_ - ..December 7,. 1976, 1' 30 P._M_.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: 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 3,of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the
requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is~ therefor~ categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-786 for adoption disapproving the
requested amendment to Reclassification No. 68-69-100(readvertised). Refer to .
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-786: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DISAPPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS IN RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-100
PERTAINING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-786 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2860' On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Roth, public hearing on Variance No. 2860 was continued to
December 21, 1976, at the request of the Applicant. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1661' Application by Calvary Baptist
Church, to permit a private school and pre-school on 'RS-A-43,000 zoned property
located at 2780 East Wagner Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-236, recommended
that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provision of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and, further, recommended that Conditional Use Permit No. 1661
be denied.
Appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed by Arthur N. Ramey, Agent and
public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of
being heard.
Mr. Jim Thayer, Architect for the Applicant, 77 Brookhollow, Santa Ana,..explained
that as he approached the Planning Commission hearing he did not realize that
joint development for the gravel pit would commence in 1977. If that were known,
he stated the application would have been'withdrawn and resubmitted showing the
ultimate master plan for the property including one additional educational build-
ing. Since the proposed building had been previously discussed with staff, he
did not agree that non-submittal of the ultimate plan for the property was sufficient
as one of the reasons for denial by the Planning Commission. It was his opinion
that the matter should have been continued.
Mr. Thayer explained that the Applicant was also willing to mitigate the concerns of
the neighbors, relative to noise, even to the point of providing indoor recreation
in the new building. He requested a six-month approval for forty students so they
could finish the school year, and as wel~ indicated they would start submitting
plans to staff with the idea of presenting the ultimate development plan as the
six month period expired The City would then have the opportunity to consider the
ultimate plan and the ChUrch would have the opportunity to establish a track record
in the neighborhood. They wanted to prove that the site was adequate to provide
schooling under a new program called Accelerated Christian Training (ACE), a new
concept in elementary and high school education.
He reiterated they were only proposing the use o.f their buildings for forty students,
whereas use was approved for 440tpeople on Sunday, even though the original use
permit did not list the provision for educationaI facilities, with the exception
of pre-schooL Mr. Thayer contended the Applicant was being restricted by only
being able to use his buildings one day a week.
· 76-931
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976, 1:30 P,M,
Councilman Seymour questioned the Applicant's desire to prove a track record
over the objections of the neighbors who abutted the property, especially in
light of the fact that he noticed the subject property' was up for sale while
at the same time Mr. Thayer was talking about long range occupancy.
Mr. Thayer confirmed that the property was for sale but explained that even
though they may not build the final development, they wanted to know what the
City Council and the Planning Commission might allow.
Councilman Seymour expressed the concern that although the church may be a good
neighbor, they could be selling the property with permission to utilize it in a
dense fashion to someone the City did not know and over which they would have
no control; the point being that a conditional use permit would continue to
the next owner.
Mr. Thayer indicated that the primary use was for a church and the property
would not be bought with the idea of using it for school facilities. The reason
they wanted to sell was for just that reason, it was limiting them as to what
they planned relative to a school. They were mainly concerned with starting
the ACE Program in order to gain experience for further implementation.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard, either in favor or in opposition.
The following people spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1661 for
the below listed reasons:
Clara White, 1002 South Marjan; Donald S. Roush, 994 South Marjan; Ignatius Alongi,
972 South Marjan; Keith White, 1002 South Marjan.
a) lowering of property value
b) landscaping and trees that were promised were never provided
c) objection to the school instead of a church
d) resultant traffic conditions would be hazardous for children
A petition signed by most of the residents to the rear of the subject .property was
presented, opposing Conditional Use Permit No. 1661.
Mr. Alongi elaborated on the many problems he encountered His main concern was
the existing two-story building directly to the rear of his backyardwhich was a major
intrusion of his privacy, and which disturbances caused by all of the activities
conducted in that building created an intolerable situation.
No one spoke in favor of Conditional Use Permit No. 1661.
In summation, Mr. Thayer explained that in their proposal for the second building,
they offered to back the building up to the residential property instead of running
it parallel but the neighbors objected. The building was then turned 90 degrees
thus exposing the windows to adjacent properties. He explained, however, that the
windows would be opaque glass.
He reiterated that the Church had endeavored to minimize the noise and that the
proposed educational building would be located on the far side of the property
away from the residential area, thereby alleviating further possible noise problems.
Relative to traffic, Mr. Thayer indicated that the school had two streets approach-
ing it; that did not have houses fronting on them; and that students, instead of
walking, would be driven to school by their parents.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Seymour stated that, based on the history of the property, it would
not be in the best interest of the people who live in the neighborhood to ex-
pand a use that already created conflict.
ENVIRONbIENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman-
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that the proposed pr~
ject will have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt
from the requirement to prepare to an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
76-932
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-787 for adoption denying Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1661. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-787: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1661.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-787 duly passed and adopted.
ANAHEIM HUB DEVELOPMENT - TRANSPORTATION CENTER: Mr. Enwood Thompson, represent-
ing Anaheim Hub Development, Inc., explained that his company was interested in
acquiring the option to develop a Transportation Center in the Stadium area since
Multimodal's Agreement with the City had expired. Because of the time and effort
required to prepare the necessary data for the submittal, he requested a 60-day
exclusive option relative to the development of the Center.
Mr. Thompson explained further that he had met with City Manager Talley on the
matter and discussed the information that Council would require relative to the
principals of the Corporation, capabilities and financial statements which they
would provide. He indicated further that Mr. Hadlock of Anaheim Hub Development
was present who could explain their proposed concept as well as give further
information regarding their expertise in transportation which he contended was
the finest in the Country.
Councilman Kott asked if Anaheim Hub Development would have any objections to
building a station platform, should it be considered, in accordance with the
specifications of the City.
Mr. Thompson ind:icated they would have no objection to so doing and further stated
that they would build the platform ( Amtrak Railroad Station) to comply with all City
plans and specifications at the~r cost which was estimated to .be between $80,000.00
and $100,00.00. He emphasized that the main purpose of the project would be to
have a central transportation center incorporating several methods of transporta-
tion.
The Mayor explained that when the City was considering a contractual relationship
with Multi~o"dal, one of the requirements was, prior to entering into such a relation-
ship, that they put up a $300,000.00 cash deposit to insure the development of
a train station.
Mr. Thompson indicated they would continue with that concept although they
did not feel that it would run as high as $300,000.00. He stated they would
put up a financial statement, letter of credit or actual cash when the time
arrived. However, they had planned during the option period to work on good
faith and when the lease was approved, put up $25,000.00 good faith money.
He indicated they would be spending thousands of dollars preparing the prelimi-
nary information with the ultimate goal of working out a master plan which, in
turn, would bring considerable revenue to the City.
City Manager Talley reiterated what was discussed with Mr. Thompson relative to
the train station, indicating that the City had applied for a Grant in the amount
of approximately $80,000.00 with a 90% probability of receiving the money to pro-
vide a basic platform for Amtrak. In reality, Amtr.ak~ would have to build the
platform. Therefore, the City would merely pass the funds through. He stated
that Mr. Thompson had assured him if that happened, Anaheim Hub Development would
deposit with the City $80~000.00 in lieu of that improvement. The $300,000.00 was
for a more elaborate platform that wou].d include adequate inclement weather pro-
visions and other amenities the City would like to seg but not insisted upon in
any agreement.
76-933
C__ity Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- December 7, 1977~ 1'30 P.M.
Mr. Talley assured Mr. Thompson that no one was going to demand such a faci. lity
in the next 60 days and that Anaheim Hub Development could proceed witho~t an
agreement if they wished to do so to provide Council a-complete feasibility plan.
Councilman Ruth suggested that the matter be referred back to staff to put a
complete package together and subsequently provide Council with a realistic plan.
Mr. Thompson indicated that was what they wanted to do but it would take approxi-
mate!y 60 days.
The Mayor clarified that the request was for the City not to entertain aay other
proposals for the 60 days, giving Anaheim Hub Development the exclusive right
of negotiation during that period, relative to the Transportation Center.
Councilman Seymour indicated" that before Mr. Thompson spent vast sums of money in
design, from his standpoint, if the City was to be successful in obtaining the
Federsl Grant for the ra~_~.road station, as indicated by Mr. Talley, tile need for
funding no longer existed. The original concept was to trade-off real estate
development in exchange for funding that would be needed for building the Trans-
portation Center. If another avenue for funding was open, then the City w~s no
longer pressed to trade-off any real estate development.
Relative to the $300,000.00 for a more elaborate train station, the intent was
money be considered as earnest money not for investment ~.nto the train station,
but investment in other p~blic improvements. This would be a demonstration of
good faith for the City's execution of a lease and the funds would then be dis-
bursed and drawn on to make the various capital improvements.
After having spent over a ye~r in an exclusive agreement to develop a Transpor-
tation Center, Councilman Seymour wanted to be certain of the principals being
dealt with before he W°u]d approve another 60 days. He asked the City Manager to
prov£Ce the qualifications of the principals involved in Anaheim Hub Develop-
ment as suggested by Councilman Ruth.
Mr. Thompson was agreeable to providing the requested information and indicated
that it would be provided within three weeks and further emphasized the necessity
for the exclusive period of time where the City would not negotiate with other
people.
By general Council consent, the City Manager was instructed to report back to
Council three weeks after Anaheim Hub Development provided the necessary data
requested.
APPEAL - DENIAL FOR ANIMAL LICENSE- On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilman Thom, the appeal from denial of an animal liCense application from
the County of Orange for a chimpanzee to be kept at the residence of Nancy I.
Abbott, 745 Peralta Hills Drive, was continued to December 21~ 1976, and staff was
instructed to contact the Abbotts relative to this continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC DISUCSSION - MOBILE HOME PARKS: The Mayor referred to report
from the City Attorney dated December 7, 1976, (on file in the City Clerk's
Office) relative to the City Ordinance pertaining to sales of mobile homes in
Mobile Home Parks, requested at the meeting of November 16, 1976.
Councilman Ruth asked specifically if State law prevented the local government
from passing an ordinance to preclude managers of existing parks from becoming
involved in resales within their Mobile Home Park.
City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his report which, in the final
analysis, concluded that the City of Anaheim could not prevent Mobile Home
Park managers from selling mobile homes if the manager was licensed as a
real estate broker or as a vehicle dealer or salesmmn under the California
Vehicle Code. He also pointed out the various avenues of recourse available
should such privileges be abused.
Councilman Ruth stated that he could understand why people were objecting corl-
sidering the testimony given at the November 16, 1976, meeting. It was his
opinion that managers had an unfair advantage since they had the authority to
approve tenants who move into a given park.
76-934
City ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNC.I.L MINU. TES .... - December 7~ 1976, 1'30 P.M.
Before opening the discussion to the public, the Mayor emphasized that State
law did, in fact, pre-empt local (City) law and the only course of action was
to bring the City Ordinance into conformance with State law.
Mr. Timothy Tierney, Attorney, representing Western Mobile Home Association and other
parks in the City, as well as the Statewide Mobile Home Association, explained that
relative to managers selling mobile homes, Civil Code answered any problems regarding
enforcement, and there were State and local agencies which tenants could contact with-
out turning to the City for recourse. He emphasized that there were many good
managers with a dealer§ license who did a good job for their tenants.
Councilman Roth indicated that his main concern was to preclude some of the
unusual things that were happening in the tenant-manager relationships relative
to the sale of coaches, as expressed in previous testimony.
Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Tierney indicated that there were pro-
visions in the California Civil Code allowing the mobile homeowner to attach
conditions to a sale by a tenant such as maintenance of landscaping. But, rel-
ative to specific tenants, they could not be excluded for any other reasons but
financial or a previous poor record at another mobile home park. Relative to
excluding minorities, Mr. Tierney indicated there were other remedies already
covered by State Statute and various enforcement agencies.. He stressed with
regard to previous testimony given that it was unfair to classify every mobile
home park manager in the same category.
Mrs. Pat Kisch, 1400 Douglass Road, Space 90, 'Orangetr~ee Mobile Home Park, 'and
representative of the Mobile Home Owners Protective Association, referred to
the various remedies for tenant recourse which she stated had not proven to
be successful. She explained that only one agency, t.he Fair Housing Council,
had thus far been responsive. Mrs. Kisch stressed that many residents did not
live in a happy park and she was concerned that there was no public agency to
turn to for obtaining definite answers to their concerns.
Councilman Roth clarified that the City was now unable to assist because of
pre-emption by State law and suggested that residents could make a strong
lobbying force by contacting State Senators and Assemblymen since any change
would have to be mandated by the State.
Mrs. Kisch pointed to the case where the Police Department was called in because
a resident was being manhandled by the Park manager. The resident was desirous
of signing a complaint for assault and battery but was told since it was a Civil
Action the Police Department could not do this.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that recourse would be through his Office if the
matter occurred within the City. If it was a violation of the State Penal Code,
then his Office would file the complain~ but it-had to be brought to his atten-
tion by either the Police Department or the individual involved. He suggested
further that Mrs. Kisch follow the recommendations in his report wherein several
avenues were presented for the resolution of grievances. He ~stated that the
law was there, it was just a matter of utilization of know-how.
Mr. San Rehla, dealer, explained that he represented the California Multiple.
Listing Association established since June 15, 1976, when State law enabled
the multiple listing of mobile homes previously not allowed. He emphasized
that in his six years experience, there wasn't a mobile home park in Orange
County where dealers were precluded from making a sale or taking a listing.
He explained that although properly licensed managers were in direct compe-
tition with dealers and could sell for less money, the consumer was, therefore,
not always put at a disadvantage. He conceded that although, as stated in previous
testimony, there were some cases of unethical practices, on the whole the industry
in Orange County was doing an excellent job of policing' itself from some of
the problems experienced in the past.
Nancy Smith, Administrative Assistant, Western Mobile Home Association, ex-
plained that within her Association there was a Resident Affairs Council to
basically open up lines of communication between residents and the owners and/or
managers of mobile home Parks. She emphasized that if a resident had a complaint
they were to call her office. In many instances, such complaints were just a
76-9~5
City Hall, Anaheim, CAlifornia- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7~ 1976~ 1:30 P.M,
matter of communication problems. She stated that since June, her Committee
handled approximately 150 complaints in all of Southern California, represent-
ing 500 mobile home parks, all of which had been resolved. If not resolved
by her office, then the alternative was to take the matter before the Orange
County Grievance Council, whose Chairman was the Deputy District Attorney. To
her knowledge, no complaint had yet been brought before that Council.
Before closing, the Mayor recognized Mr. Meddock from Satellite Park, who he
acknowledged ran one very fine Park. Mr. Meddock had no additional comments to
add to the subject matter.
ORDINANCE NO. 3633' At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour offered
Ordinance No. 3633 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3633: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SUBSECTIONS
18.02.052.020, 18.02.052.021, 18.02.052.0211, 18.02.052.0212, 18.02.052.0213,
18.02.052.0214, 18.02.052.0215, .8.02.052.0216, 18.02.052.0217, 18.02.052.0218,
18.02.052.022 PERTAINING TO THE SALE OF MOBILEHOMES IN MOBILEHOME PARKS.
RECESS' By general consent the City Council recessed for 5 minutes. (5'30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS' Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:35 P.M.)
ZONE CORRECTION - RECLASSIFICATION .NO. 75-76-27' Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 76-788 for adoption amending Resolution No. 76R-247. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-788: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-247, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY CORRECTING THE
ZONING OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED. (75-76-27, RS-7200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-788 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS- On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT' The following permit was granted subject to the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit for forty pinball machines, six pool tables, twelve
arcades, and six miscellaneous amusement devices to be located at The Polish
Arcade, 1214 North Dale Street. (Betty R. Natzke, applicant)
2. CORRESPONDENCE- The following correspondence was ordered received and filed'
a. Notice of public hearing set by the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of California for February 17, 1977, regarding application of Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
for authority to abandon Intercity Routes UR-6.13 and UR-6.16 in Los Angeles and
Orange Counties. (on file)
b. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Resolution No. FA-572,
requiring annual statement of salaries and expenses -officers or employees
(on file) '
c. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CPD 76-20, revision of
HUD relocation policy. (on file)
d. Federal Power Commission regarding Southern California Edison Company Docket
No. ER76-205, rulings on motions of November 24, 1976. (on file)
e. Monthly reports for October, 1976 - Water and Electrical Divisions. (on file)
76-936 ·
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976~ 1'30 P.M.
f. Community Redevelopment Commission minutes of November 10, 1976. (on file)
g. Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of October~ 27, 1976. (on file)
MOTION CARRIED.
SANTA ANA.RIVER/SANTIAGO CREEK GREENBELT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (1976)' Planning
Director, Ron Thompson requested this item be removed from the Consent Calenda' for
separate action. On motion by Counci'lwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
discussion of the subject plan was continued for two weeks, at which time a joint
report would be submitted by the Planning Department and the Parks, Recreation and
the Arts Department recommending appropriate action on the plan. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 76R-789 THROUGH 76R-791' Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos.
76R-789 through 76R-791, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the
reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and
as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-789' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Sterling Development, Inc.;
Sterling Development Inc.; Madeline F. Carmichael; Paul E. O'Kain, Jr., et al;
Golden West Equity Properties, Inc.; I.P.S., a general partnership, et al; Jose I.
Dominguez, et al; Carl P. and Bonnie A. Lawson; Clarence L. and Darleen E. Heinrich)
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-790- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DIRECTOR'S DEED FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. (NELY OF RTE 5 FWY., WLY OF HARBOR BLVD.)
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-791' 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' FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION
OF REFLECTORIZED SIGNS FOR BICYCLE LANES ON LINCOLN AVE., FROM SUNKIST TO EAST
CITY LIMITS AND ON SUNKIST FROM BALL RD. TO LINCOLN., IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NO. 875; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT 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.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 76R-789 through 76R-791, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3632' Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3632 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3632' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(18), RS-5000)
Roll Call Vote'
AYES · COUNCIL MEMBERS- Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS- None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3632 duly passed and adopted.
SOLAR HEATING EXPERIMENT - PILOT PROGRAM- Councilwoman Kaywood explained that
at the Economic~ _ Outlook Conference there was a presentation by Mission Viejo on
Pilot
a
=rosram where experimentation was being conducted involving two solar '
heated houses. She indicated that representatives from City staff had toured
the homes the previous week and that another tour was to take place on December 30,
1976. She was to advise if there were others'.' interested in attending the upcoming
tour.
,
' 76-937
City Hall, Anaheim~
California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decembe.r.. 7~
1976~ 1'30 P.M.
APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC WORKS GRANTS: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that SCAG had
processed 1,435 applications for Public Works Grants totalling 1.4 billion dollars
and the total amount for the entire SCAG region was 125 million dollars. Notification
to the districts was to begin on December 23, 1976.
ANAHEIM BOULEVARD-HASTER INTERCHANGE: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the
recent SCAG meeting, Caltrans recommended against the Anaheim Boulevard-Haster
Interchange for joint participation in favor of other State Highway System pri-
orities. She questioned their calling it a local item inasmuch as it was the
entrance to City and the Disneyland area with approximatly ten million people a
year passing through that location. She reported that the subject interchange
was to be included in a Highway Evaluation Report to establish priorities with
a decision to be forthcoming within six months relative to the status of the pro-
posed interchange.
SANITATION AND SEWAGE DISTRICT APPROyALS - RECOMMEND STATE LEGISLATION- Relative
to the previous approval of procedures for expediting the processing of develop-
ment plans, Councilman Seymour explained that one aspect required a change in
legislation in Sacramento regarding the processing of Sanitation and Sewage
District approvals.
City Manager Talley elaborated on the problem dealing with the subject districts,
where annexation to the districts was involved. He explained that a time problem
arose because the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was required to pass
upon these annexations thereby the process occupied approximately 120 days. He
suggested that staff prepare amending legislation and subsequently secure an
Orange County Legislator such as Senator Knox who would, in turn, introduce the
Amendment at the State level.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, staff was instructed
to prepare amending legislation relative to Sanitation and Sewage District approvals
when annexation to these districts was involved in order to speed the processing
of developments as well as identify the Orange County Legislator to introduce
the Amendment to Sacramento. MOTION CARRIED.
SALE AND PTJRCHASE AGREEMENT - NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY' Councilman Seymour referred
to memo dated November 29, 1976, which led him to believe that'the trackage agree-
ment relative to the Nalco transaction should be of minimal concern and asked for
additional information from staff.
Thornton Piersall, Director of Public Works, referred to the letter submitted to
Council after the meeting of November 30, 1976, indicating that the Southern
Pacific Railroad would agree to a Change of Ownership Agreement with the City.
Mr. Piersall explained that he further discussed with the railroad that the
City's utilization of the track would involve two or three cars of asphalt a
year, representing 20 to 30 thousand gallons. He pursued the matter by obtain-
ing confirmation in writing relating to the historical fact that the railroad
did not disrupt service to an existing spur trackage on that kind of use. However,
their company policy was such that no affirmation was given in writing due to
the terms of the Trackage Agreement. The Agreement stated that if the industry
should cease to do business on said track in an active and substantial way, for
a continuous period of one year, they could consider this an opportunity to
terminate the Agreement. The railroad did indicate, however, that if they were
making money they would continue to deliver to the property.
Councilman Seymour asked if the railroad had customers whose need was from one
to three cars a year and, if so, did they continue to serve them.
Mr. Piersall stated that he asked that specific question and the indication was
the railroad would provide limited service to that degree to their customers
although he could not get a commitment from them.
Councilman Seymour thereupon indicated that his two previous questions were
answered and he therefore could now vote favorably on the sale and purchase
agreement with Nalco Chemical Company.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-792 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
76-938
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976, 1'30. P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-792' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OFFERING TO PURCHASE CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 EAST VERMONT AVENUE SUBJECT
TO CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE "SALE-AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT,
OPTION, LEASE, AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS" AS SIGNED BY OFFICERS OF NAL.CO CHEMICAL
COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN CITY OFFICERS TO EFFECTUATE SAID PURCHASE.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None
ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' 'None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-792 duly passed and adopted.
PHASE OUT OF GREENBELT COMMISSION: Councilman Kott explained that at the
December 2, 1976, meeting of the Greenbelt Commission it was decided that the
subject Commission be phased out since the purposes of the Commission's existence
were achieved and now it was just a matter of the individual cities implement-
ing the plans presented over the past few years. He indicated that closing-
out costs for Anaheim would be approximately $5,000 to $7,000 and that the
Commission would cease after the next meeting.
CURRENT PRACTICE - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS' Mayor Thom referred to a letter
addressed to the City Attorney from a Mr. Jensen representing the Santa Ana
Canyon Improvement Association relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 1635
as well as other matters. In the subject letter the Association voiced ob-
jections to the Pi'anning Commission~ current practice of declaring negative
declarations on what they considered a piece-meal basis. The main purpose
of the communication was a request for a meeting between the City Attorney and
other appropriate staff members to review the situation and explore the possibility
of improving it. Mr. Jensen noted that he was unable to contact the City Attorney.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he was also unsuccessful in the several attempts
made to contact Mr. Jensen but an answer to his letter was already in process.
Planning Director Thompson reported that there were new State requirements re-
garding Environmental Impact Reports and that his Department was working with
the City Attorney's Office to bring City'guidelines into conformance with the
latest State requirements.
HOSTING OF DELEGATION FROM MITO JAPAN: The Mayor reported on the last meeting
with the Committee working on the reception for the contingent of officials from
Mito Japan, which contingent was scheduled to be in Anaheim December 21 and 22,
1976. According to the proposed schedule, he indicated that the financial involve-
ment of the City would not exceed $500.00 covering the following: A dinner reception
at the Convention Center on Tuesday, December 21, 1976 and attendent incidental
expenses, as well as a tour of the City. He pointed out that only the Mito delega-
tion would be hosted at the dinner, not the others who would be attending from
Anaheim.
The Mayor then elaborated on the two-day schedule for the delegation, those
portions of which were not covered by the City would be funded and hosted by
the Kiwanis Clubs and other service organizations who expressed an interest
in so doing.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, an expenditure
not to exceed $500.00 from the Council Contingency Fund for hosting the 30-member
delegation from Mito Japan to a dinner and City tour December 21 and 22, 1976, was
approved. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Seymour moved to recess to 7:00 p.m~ at the Management Control
Center for a joint study session to discuss the Canyon Area General Plan and
~ost/benefit analysis with the City Planning Commission and the Santa Ana Canyon
Area General Planning Task Force. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (6:00 P.M.) .
76-939
Management Control Center- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976~ 7-00 P.M.
~ ~. 114 South~ Claudine' .St..r...e. et., Anaheim.._ C.a_!i..forni~ ....
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Farano, Barnes, Herbst, Johnson, King,
Morley and Tolar
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: None
PRESENT. TASK FORCE MEMBERS. John Seymour, Miriam Kaywood, Lewis Herbst, Floyd
Farano, Charlene Barnes, Mary Dinndorf, Roland
Krueger, Stewart Moss, LeRoy Rose, Owen Brown,
Bill Mitchell, Jan Hall, Mitzi Omaki, Jim Barisic
and Phil Bettencourt
ABSENT: TASK FORCE MEMBERS: Bill Lusk, Lynn Buffington, Bob Dunham and Bob
Johnson
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
PROVISIONAL ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR- PLANNING: Phil Schwartze
ASSOCIATE PLAlqNER: Bill Cunntngham
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill West
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 7-10 P.M. and announced that
since the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the project upon which
the Canyon General Planning Task Force has been working, Councilman
Seymour would chair the meeting.
Chairman Johnson called the Planning Commission meeting to order.
.PROPOSED GENERAL P...LAN A ..M~..DMENT -...HILL _.AND CANYON AREA. Mr. Bill Cunningham gave a
brief outline of the Task Force activities to date, i.e., that in the Summer of 1975
the Task Force began the General Plan Study for the Canyon Area; on September 23, 1975
they defined the study area as having boundaries coterminous with the City~ of' Anaheim's
Sphere of Influence in the Canyon Area; (Esperanza and the Santa Aha Riverbed to the
north, the County line to the east, the ridgeline of the Santa Aha Mountains to the
south, and approximately the Newport Freeway to the west). From September to
January the Task Force was deeply involved in consideration of policies and culminated
this section of the study with adoption of a policy package in January of 1976,
establishing, in general terms, the policies to be pursued and giving staff some
direction.
In line with the policy guideline established by the Task Force, the City staff devel-
oped a number of alternatives, and these were pared down to four basic alternative
development plans for the Canyon Area; (these four basic plans were illustrated on
graphic charts posted on the wall). Following review of these, the Task Force decided
on two additional alternatives which were labeled 2A and 3A. The various development
plans represent the full spectrum from no growth to full growth all the way to the
County line. The City staff then, with the aid of a grant from HUD, was able to con-
duct a cost/benefit study of the Hill and Canyon Area which reviewed the impact of
these various land use alternatives.
COS_T/BENEFIT.S STUDY. Mr. Bill West reviewed the cost/benefits study conducted, noting
first that the model which was jointly developed by the County and Cities of Orange,
Yorba Linda and Anaheim, was designed for the purpose of presenting certain information'
to the decision makers, and not to pre-emptthe decision-making process itself. The
cost/benefits study looked at the physical impact, the associated costs and revenues of
each alternative. In addition, such socio-economic factors as public safety and
environmental consideration were included. An overall weighted impact score, to be
used for comparative purposes, was computed for each alternative.
Mr. West described a number of imput factors includ, ed tn the model, as well as some of
the output info~tion obtained. (An outline of th~ cost/benefits model presentation
containing these input and output factors ts on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
The end product of the cost/benefits study model indicated that all alternatives had
a negative cash flow, alternative 1 (restricted growth) being the lowest with a ~ega-
tive $18 million dollar flow; altema&tive 2, 2A, 2B and 3 (lo~ density, expanded low
density and low to medium' density) would be approximately equal with a negative
76-940
Management Control Center- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976, 7'00 P.M.
_ _ . . . 114. South Claudina..Street, An.a. heim, Calif0rnia .......
$57 million dollar cash flow; and finally, alternative 4 (full growth) which would
have the highese hegative cash flow of negative $82 million, and which was indicated
would probably be the least desirable, based upon the analysis.
Mr. Cunningham reported that using the information provided by the cost/benefits
model, the Task Force selected alternative 2A which represents a compromise position
between alternatives 1 and 4, and is a modified growhh policy, to accommodate a maximum
of 65,000 people in the Canyon Area within a 20-year period. It represents a continua-
tion of estate density residential with one-half to one-acre lots or 1.5 dwelling units
to the acre wit~ some areas designated for higher density, such as Weir and Gypsum
Canyons. The Task Force, having selected 2A with some modifications directed staff to
prepare what has become alternative 2B, which they recommended to the City Council for
approval.
The projected schedule from this point forward for adoption of the General Plan Amend-
ment calls for public hearings before the Planning Commission tentatively scheduled
February 14, 1977, and before the City Council on March 8, 1977. The statistical
information and memorandums have been forwarded to outside agencies, including the
School Districts, and responses have been received from almost all agencies. Staff
is now in the process of plotting locations on the proposed General Plan Amendment
for major electrical utility substations which the Task Force indicated they wished
to be included as precisely as possible. A more definitive nmp with these final
adjustments will be prepared by the end of December, 1976, and staff will then begin
preparation of the EIR, which is scheduled to be ready by January 14, 1977 for consi-
deration by the EIR Reviow Committee on Feb~-uary 1, 1977.
_DISCUS.SION- During discussion and comments on the land use alternatives and models,
Mr. Mitchell commented that it would not seem to him to be good planning to designate
the largest area of flat land for estate zoned lots and the land which is~more diffi-
cult to develop because of its terrain to be designated for higher density. Logic
would lead him to believe the situation should be revers'ed.
Mrs. Ozaki explained that the rationales, for the change to estate density on the west
side of Weir Canyon was because of the major trails plan for that area. She noted
that one of the major difficulties the Trails Committee encountered was not gaining
the cooperation of developers producing the higher density tracts to dedicate ease-
ments adjacent to their projects since they feel that this particular amenity would
not attract nor be used by their potential homebuyers. She pointed out that Weir
Canyon is the last opportunity left for continuing the trai~s system to the riverbed
to complete access to the largest recreational area~n .the Canyon, the Santa Ana
Rivezbed Trails System.
Mr. Mitchell responded that from a planning standpoint the City could provide these
trail easements by conditions relative to the development, but there is demonstrated
success that higher'density is an acceptable lifestyle, and to exclude that flat
land area from potential development in 7,000 to 8,000-foot lots would be
removing one of the last few chances to develop that kind of project.
Other concerns addressed during the general discussion were the need for a post office
to serve the anticipated population, and it was indicated that these are developed as
neighborhood units and could easily be accommodated.
The concept of the City accepting park land rather than in-lieu fees was discussed,
and Mr. Kamphefner reported that the Canyon is divided into three park service areas,
and Area 1 is now being developed. Currently, the City is accepting land instead of
fees but this policy ~'hould be reviewed carefully to see if it is the most beneficial
and appropriate for the remaining service areas.
Mr. Phil Bettencourt pointed out that in addition to four parcels of land for park
sites, Anaheim Hills paid $100,000 in fees whi.ch are being.used toward park improve-
ments at the City's discretion, and in return Anaheim Hills has received an allocation
of so many dwelling units within that park service area.
With respect to the cost/benefits land use model, Councilman Seymour stressed that
its intent was purely to be used as a tool or guide, and not the final worlt in land
76-941
Management Control Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976, ¥:00 P,M,
._ . 114 South Claud.i.F~..' ..S. tree.t.- Anaheim. Cal. ifornta . .
use decisions because of the admittedly subjective factors in the assignment of
relative weightings of importance.
Mr. Mitchell voiced his concern that conclusions might be drawn from this cost/benefits
model indicating that housing will cost more than another alternative, when all
factors have not been appropriately we£ghted. He noted that it concerns him, also,
that everyone who lives in the Canyon Area shops in another city because you cannot
travel to downtown Anaheim without passing shopping centers in other cities; that
this is one of the reasons that the cash flow situation is out of balance.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that the model did not include additional tax revenues
received by the City as a result of indistrial development to the north, which will
contribute toward financing the residential segment.
Mr. Bettencourt addressed the subject of precision in siting of public facilities,
commenting that probably the most-&sked question by a prospective homebuyer is where
the schools are located, etc., to which Mr. Lowry responded that in a general plan
a school site can only be generally indicated and not precisely plotted unless the
City is willing to condom that particular piece of property.
Mr. Cunningham explained that the Planning Department attemp'ts, relative to future
locations of school and electrical substations sites, to take the specific criteria
from the professionals involved, and then site these as best they Can. He related
that it is also important to educate homeo~ters and buyers as to what a general
plan is, and that the plotted sites are not frozen but floating.
Brief discussion regarding the funding for future schools in the Orange Unified
School District ensued, during which Mr. Bill West reiterated that the Orange
Unified School District is very interested in the results of the cost/benefits land
use'models and at least have a more reliable projection of what the student population
is and will be. They have expressed interest in further analysis of the coSt/benefit
findings.
The public was invited to comment, and the participation was from Mr. Bruce Tripp of
Kauffman and Broad, which firm has an interest in property located in Weir Canyon.
Mr. Tripp questioned whether the revised General Plan was actually being adopted at
this meeting and was apprised of the forthcoming schedule of hearings before both
the Planning Commission and City Council.
MOTI. QN' At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Commissioner Farano, seconded
by Commissioner Morley, the Planning Commission concurred with the timetable on
public hearings on the proposed General Plan Amendment, establishing the Planning
Commission public hearing tentatively for February 14, 1977, and Council's hearing
for March 8, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTI.____~- On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council adopted the schedule set forth by the Planning Department and approved
by the Planning Commission for the ~roposed Canyon General Plan Amendment and
instructed staff to proceed with preparation of the necessary documents. MOTION
CARRIED.
P~,..,PLAcEMENT OF CANYON GENERAL PLANNING .TASK~FOR. CE WITH H. IL~ ..AND ¢_~NYON_MUNICIPAI
.,ADVISORY CO .MMITTEE (HACMAC). Councilman Seymour briefly discussed the cit~ C°Un-cil's
intent, now that the primary objective of the Task Force has been achieved, to replace
this group with a Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee, to act as a line of
communication between the interested homeowners, Planning Commission and Council.
Mrs. Ozaki indicated that she felt at least one additional meeting of the Task Force
would be necessary to deal with the question of minimum frontages in estate zones.
On motion by Task Force Member Stew Moss, seconded by Jan Hall, .the matter of
minimum frontages for estate ~.ones was referred as business to be considered by
the Hill and Canyog Municipal Advisory Co~nittee once it is formed and operational.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. LeRoy Rose, Task Force Member, moved that the Task Force offer their congratula-
tions and appreciation to City staff which has assisted th~m in putting this proposed
amendment together. Mrs. Dinndorf seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
76-942
Management Control Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1976, ~'00 P.M.
__ . .... 114 Sout.h Claudina S_t~r~eet. Anaheim.. Califo~rnia ......
Commissioner Johnson thanked both the Task Force and City staff for their efforts.
Mayor Thom, on behalf on the City Council, indicated that he felt what has been
accomplished by the Task Force is a model of citizen participation in a community,
working together to solve its own problems, and that he is proud to have been on
the Council during its existence.
ADJOURNMENT.~- ,PLANNING COMMISSIO~N· On motion by Commissioner King, seconded by
Commissioner Morley, the City Planning Con~nission adjourned to Monday, December 13,
1976, 7'30 P.M. at the E1 Rancho Junior High School Library for a work session with
the Mohler Drive-EuCalyptus Drive residents concerning Area Development Plan No. 117.
MOT ION CARRIED.
_AD_JOU, .P~NMAI~T -.CITY COUNCIL- Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned. 8- 15 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK