1975/12/0275-1037
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood (arrived at 2:35 P.M. and left 6:25 P.M.),
Seymour, Pebley (left at 5:30 P.M.), Sneegas and
Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
LIBRARY DIRECTOR: William Griffith
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance
to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A Resolution of Support on the occasion of the First
Annual American Motocross Finals to be held December 13, 1975 at the Anaheim
Stadium was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Mike
Goodwin.
MINUTE~: Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings
held November 4, 11, 18 and 25, 1975 and Adjourned Regular Meeting held
November 13, 1975, was deferred to the next regular me,ting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Sneegas moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the
reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
BEPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY' Demands against the City in the
amount of $184,496.69, in accordance with the 1975-76 Budget, were approved.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AUDIT REPORTS - LIBRARY~ FINANCIAL AUDIT~ MANAGEMENT LETTER,
ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY: Mr. Tim Haidinger introduced Mr. Roger Hoff, Mr. Ed Karle
and Mr. Jim Legieur who presented the Management Audit Reports on the Library,
Financial Audit and Management Letter, respectively. (Complete copies of said
reports on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
LIBRARY: Mr. Hoff outlined the scope of the analysis performed in the Library
Department. He reported that as a result of their review and comparison with
Library operations in cities of comparable size,they find the Anaheim Libraries
to be well run and efficiently operated. It appears overall that the Libraries
do provide a high level of quality service to the patrons utilizing them.
The following are the Arthur Young & Company recommendations resulting
from the audit on the Library Department:
1. That if continuation of the security patrol service as is currently
being used is warranted, the Library Department should take the necessary steps
to upgrade the service level to the satisfaction of the Library Director.
2. Monitoring of the recent changes in the book selection and ordering
process to insure that the efficiencies gained over the last six months are not
lost.
3. Continue to search for cost-effective ways to reduce the number of
duplicate editions (This should include periodic evaluation of book rental
services as well as the continued use of paper back service where feasible.)
75- 1038
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 ~P.M.
4. The Arthur Young & Company concurs with the request made by the Library
Department for a feasibility study of automation of the circulation control
function of the Library, as this could provide opportunities for clerical
reductions.
5. They recommend that the position of Book Collector be created and
filled, parhaps by personnel eliminated as a result of curtailment of the
Book Mobile operations.
Mr. Hoff stated that in their opinion the George Washington Community
Center operation does not appear to be effective and they would recommend that
the City Council evaluate alternative programs which may be as beneficialf
Review of the Business Office functions leads them to wonder whether these would
warrant the current staffing level, but with the additional work load anticipated
as a result of the expansion of Library services into two new branches, they
would not recommend reduction at this time. Once the two new branches are
operational for a period of time, they recommend that the staffing levels in
the Business Office,as well as in the Library as a whole,be reviewed and
justified.
Mr. Hoff concluded that the Arthur Young & Company concurs with the need
for a facilities study of the Central Library which has been requested by this
Department; and further recognizes that there are short-term efficiencies which
can and should be realized as a result of modifications to the facility which
should be addressed as part of any feasibility study.
In response to Council questions regarding the comments made on the George
Washington Community Center Library function, Mr. Hoff explained that they find
the actual circulation realized at this center does not appear to be adequate
to justify the City's expense.
Mr. William Griffith, Library Director, commented on the Arthur Young &
Company report. He stated that they have no quarrel with the recommendations
given and can implement same. However he pointed out that the recommendation
regarding the George Washington Community Center is a policy decision and is
therefore addressed to the City Council.
During brief discussion Council Members indicated they would like to
receive a reevaluation from the Library Board on the operations at the George
Washington Community Center, and that Joe Garza, Community Relations Represen-
tative, and representatives from the Anaheim Elementary School District also
be involved in such discussion, to determine whether this program should be
continued or some other program implemented to meet the community needs of that
area.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council accepted the Arthur Young & Company report on the Management Practices
Audit of the Library Department and requested that the Library Director report
back on the phasing and implementation of the recommendations contained therein.
Councilwoman Kaywood absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL REPORT: Mr. Ed Karle explained that the Financial Report for the
1974-75 Fiscal Year submitted to the Council previously was prepared as a joint
effort between the City's Finance Department and his firm.
Mr. Karle reviewed some of the changes in format of the report from previous
years, which has partially resulted because of the requirements of the new
Industry Data Guide, "Audits of State and Local Governmental Units".
Mr. Karle explained the conclusion of the Arthur Young & Company and the
reasons for the firm's three-part opinion on the Financial Report itself, i.e.,
that they disclaim an opinion on the fixed assets group and the water utility
fund, because the City's records were not such as to permit them to apply alter-
native procedures with respect to property and depreciation amounts within these
fundg. In the Electric Utility Fund and Anaheim Municipal Golf Course Fund, they
were able to apply alternative procedures with respect to certain components
of property and related depreciation, and therefore their opinion on these is
that they do present fairly the financial position of these funds of the City
of Anaheim at June, 1975 with the exception of the effects of such adjustments
as might have been determined to be necessary had they (Arthur Young & Company)
75-103 9
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
been able to perform a satisfactory examination with respect to the property
(fixed assets) and related depreciation accounts; the opinion on all of the
remainder of the City funds is unqualified.
Councilman Seymour requested clarification as to the indicated cutoff
date for liabilities and $56,000 entry to correct that situation.
Mr. Karle explained that certain costs relating to Fiscal Year 1974 oper-
ations were not paid until 1975 and were not accrued to June 30, 1974, primarily
because of an early cutoff of costs incurred during that year as of June 30.
Councilman Seymour questioned whether there are immediate changes which
should be made to the City's accounting system to begin to implement a fixed
asset accounting program and whether these would be costly.
Mr. Karle replied that the City could begin to monitor both additions and
deletions from this point forward without significant cost, but there is the
matter of identifying the costs for those assets which are being moved forward.
He advised that there are acceptable methods to be used in going back and
allocating these depreciation costs.
Mr. Ringer commented on the financial statement, noting that the City
ended the Fiscal Year in June, 1975, in excellent financial condition; that the
Council Auditors (Arthur Young & Company) were instructed to do a complete
financial check up on the City which has been accomplished.
Mr. Ringer referred to Page No. 16 of the Financial Report, 'Footnote No.
6,and advised that the City has an unfunded pension plan liability of $754,985,
and to his knowledge, that is the only liability facing the City out of future
revenues which has not actually been funded.
Mayor Thom commented that he found the revised format of the Financial
Statement much improved, that the information was easily readable and presented
in a manner so that it was somewhat easier to comprehend. The remaining Council
Members concurred that they were satisfied with the new format.
Mr. Murdoch commented that in changing format, there are difficulties in
comparing the immediate past year with the prior year and Arthur Young &
Company has attempted to show this transition with a series of footnotes.
However, assuming the revised format continues to be used, it will provide a
good comparison with prior years.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council accepted the Financial Report for Fiscal Year 1974-75 as presented.
Councilwoman Kaywood absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL AUDIT - MANAGEMENT LRTTER: Mr. Haidinger prefaced the report on the
Financial Audit Management Letter with the statement that this document contains
management oriented comments which resulted from their work in preparation of
the Financial Report. The Management Letter does contain a number of substantive
recommendations which would improve the financial processes of the City as they
relate not only to the operation of the Finance Department but also to the plan-
ning and control processes of City Departments.
Mr. Haidinger made two general observations about the financial health of
the City: 1) That overall the financial records were adequate with the excep-
tion of fixed asset accounts; that the comments made primarily relate to the
management use of accounting information rather than to the adequacy of record
keeping and accounting procedures themselves; 2) That using the measurement
of General Fund debt to maximum assessed valuation ratio, the City is substan-
tially below its bonding limit as prescribed in its Charter which indicates a
fairly conservative use of borrowed funds and a sound financial posture.
Mr. Haidinger stated that he would like to reassure Council that their
review process has been conducted with the policy of reviewing the draft of
their reports with the involved Department Head prior to reviewing same with
the Audit Steering Committee or Council Members and this procedure was followed
in this case as well, a copy having been delivered to Mr. Ringer but comments
have not been obtained from him. He stated that they would be pleased to dis-
cuss this report with Mr. Ringer at his convenience.
75- 1040
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - D~e~mb~r 2, 1975, 1.,30 P.M.
Mr. Jim LeSieur presented the findings and recommendations as contained in
the Financial Audit Management letter which were concerned primarily with
changes to implement a management by objectives program.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber during Mr. LeSieur's
presentation. (2:35 P.M.)
At the conclusion of Mr. LeSieur's presentation and in response to
Councilman Seymour's request for his comments,Mr. Murdoch stated that he felt
this is one of the best reports the City has received from Arthur Young &
Company; that their recommendations are very specific and point out some of
the City's basic needs. He stated that he is anxious to get into the manage-
ment by objective approach, however, he felt it should be recognized that to
implement the suggestions will require some effort and time on the part of the
Council as well as Management, and in some areas, there will be additional costs.
Mr. Ringer was recognized by the Mayor and passed out packets of material
to Council Members and the Press containing memorandums on the subject of the
credibility of Arthur Young & Company reports and financial decisions not in-
cluded in Arthur Young & Company findings. The packets also included copies
of certificates awarded to Mr. Ringer for outstanding financial reporting in
fiscal year 1973-74 by the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers.
Mr. Ringer stated that he received the draft of the Arthur Young & Company
report at 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, November 26, 1975, at which time he was told
if he had any comments to call Mr. LeSieur the following day, which was
Thanksgiving Day, November 27, 1975. He stated that he spent that day with
his family and had not called Mr. LeSieur. The Audit Steering Committee
reviewed the report on November 28, 1975 and the following day the City Manager
requested his resignation.
Mr. Ringer remarked that he considered it a lack of professional courtesy
for Arthur Young & Company, the City Manager and Audit Steering Committee not
to have reviewed the report with him. Furthermore, he stated that he believed
the Arthur Young & Company acted in great haste considering the report was
based on a reporting period of 16 months. He requested an explanation of any
conversations held between Arthur Young & Company, the City Manager and
Audit Steering Committee in regard to his qualifications and performance as
Finance Director of the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Thom stated that Arthur Young & Company has not in any reports they
have made to the City ever commented on any individual by name, and it is these
documents which are discussed at the meetings between Arthur Young & Company
and the Audit Steering Committee.
Mr. Haidinger stated also that at no time has the Arthur Young & Company
recommended dismissal of Mr. Ringer as Finance Director of the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Ringer presented further comments challenging the credibility of the
Arthur Young & Company. At the conclusion of his presentation he remarked that
he is pleased that the Council is satisfied with the joint report prepared by
the Finance Director and Arthur Young & Company but takes an extreme displeasure
of any discredits to what has been done in the past. He referred to awards
received for prior fiscal years financial reports.
Mayor Thom stated that what has transpired between the City Manager and
the Finance Director is their business and resents his name being brought into
it.
Councilman Sneegas disagreed with Councilman Thom's statement that the
Audit Steering Committee had nothing to do with the request for Mr. Ringer's
resignation.
Mr. Ringer remarked that the Financial Audit Management letter contains
no indication of the cost for implementation of the Arthur Young & Company
recommendations and Mayor Thom replied that this was because the recommendations
themselves are general in nature and not specific.
75- 1041
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour interjected that he felt the Council is losing sight of
what they unanimously determined to do in June of 1974, which was to engage a
firm to conduct a financial and management practices audit of the City aimed at
maintaining the existing service levels to the citizens and taxpayers,or pro-
viding increased service levels at the same cost. He felt it is unfortunate
that an individual has chosen, 18 months later when the audit is nearly complete,
to challenge the credibility of this firm.
Mayor Thom reiterated that there was nothing closed about the Audit Steering
Con~nittee meetings, that the Committee was appointed by the City Council, the
reason being that it is unlawful for more than two members of the Council to
meet except at a public meeting.
Councilman Sneegas stated that he has no problem with the audit itself,
but that he is concerned when a report is sprung upon the remainder of the
Council at the last minute. He stated that he had not seen the Arthur Young &
Company report until approximately 20 minutes ago when he received it at this
meeting, and that he learned of the action to remove Mr. Ringer from his
position through reading it in the newspaper.
Councilman Pebley commented that he found it hard to believe that all
those department heads including Mike Ringer, who originally came to the City
highly recommended by the City Manager as the best qualified for their positions,
have in the past six to eight months become unqualified and incapable. He
commented on the departures from City employment, either voluntary or otherwise,
of the Development Services Director, Police Chief, and Assistant City Manager.
Councilman Seymour responded to Councilman Pebley's comments that it is the
objective of the audit to review the manner in which the City is operating and
where there are ineffective or inefficient practices, corrections need to be
made. Councilman Seymour remarked that the 1974 municipal election was indica-
tive of the fact that the citizens of Anaheim wanted the situation out in the
open. The City Council has carried through with this audit to this point and
he reaffirmed his intent to do everything in his power to follow through with
the remainder of the audit, no matter what department head or personality is
involved.
Mayor Thom moved that the Financial Audit Managment letter presented by
the Arthur Young & Company be accepted. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion. Council Members Sneegas and Pebley abstained from voting on the
motion on the basis that they had insufficient time to read the report.
MOTION CARRIED.
STATEMENT PERTAINING TO CANDIDACY: Councilman Pebley announced that he does not
intend to run for re-election in 1976 and presented a prepared statement to the
Press which he advised contained the reasons for his decision.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 75-76-5: Application by
Morris J. Carroll, Donald F., Elizabeth C. & Elizabeth Ann Ralston for a change
in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL on property located on the southeast corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street was submitted together with Environmental
Impact Report No. 155.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-205
recommended that E.I.R. No. 155 be certified as in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and further recommended that Reclassifi-
cation No. 75-76-5 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Lincoln
Avenue and Gilbert Street including preparation of improvement plans and
installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street
grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be
complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; that
street lighting facilities along Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert 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 and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the
City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of
the above-mentioned requirements.
75- 1042
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of 60 cents per front foot along Gilbert Street for tree planting
purposes.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
5. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from
view and the sound buffered from adjacent residences.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south
property line.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
9. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of sub-
ject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then
be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
10. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
11. That the developer shall modify the median island in Lincoln Avenue to
provide left turn pockets as approved by the City Engineer.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; provided, however, that the southerlymost driveway
along Gilbert Street shall be eliminated and landscaping will be provided across
said driveway opening, as stipulated to by the petitioner; and that the proposed
9-space parking lot area at the southeast extremity of the property shall be
eliminated and said area to be fully landscaped with no trees abutting the
fences adjacent to the residential lots unless the trees are of a non-shedding
type, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
13. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 9, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provision~
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.
14. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, above-mentioned, shall
be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
15. That the northerly driveway proposed along Gilbert Street shall not be
used for truck deliveries, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
16. That deliveries of merchandise shall be restricted to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Said public hearing was originally scheduled November 11, 1975, and, at the
request of James A. Wood, Vice President, Construction & Maintenance, Ralphs
Grocery Company, was continued to this date.
Miss Santalahti described the surrounding land uses specifically, a motel
and vacant property to the west; residences to the north across Lincoln Avenue;
commercial uses to the east and single-family residences to the south and west
across Gilbert Street. She advised that the petitioner proposes construction
of a commercial shopping center consisting of two buildings, a supermarket and
drug store with retail shops and financial buildings. The entire complex would
be 68,000 to 69,000 square feet in size and there would be 370 parking spaces pro-
vided. Originally, vehicular access was planned to the property via four drive-
ways, two from Lincoln and two from Gilbert. The development would be in full
compliance with site development standards of the CL zone, no waivers are re-
quested. A 20-foot landscape buffer would be provided along the southerly
property line adjacent to the single-family residential housing tract. A nine-
space parking lot originally proposed to be located on the southerly portion of
the easterly extremity has been deleted and replaced with a small landscaped
areas in which no parking would be permitted.
Miss Santalahti reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the reclassification with the following stipulations:
7 5- 10/,3
City ttall~ Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
1. The closing off of the southerly driveway on Gilbert Street and
prohibition of use of the northerly driveway on Gilbert Street for truck
deliveries.
2. Eliminating the proposed nine-space employee parking lot at =he
southeast extremity of the property and creating a park-like area with low
landscaping, and no trees abutting the residential lots unless these are of a
non-shedding variety.
3. Restrict deliveries of merchandise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m.
Miss Santalahti called attention to the report jointly prepared by the
Planning Department and the Traffic Engineer in response to concerns about
traffic impacts on both streets. This report gives the estimated average daily
traffic count, assuming alternative land uses were developed.
Mr. Byron Allenbaugh, President of Ralphs Grocery Company, stated that his
firm operates 93 stores in California, 80 of which are located in the greater
Los Angeles and Orange County marketing area, and will shortly embark on their
103rd year in business. He advised that it is their policy to develop large
markets with large diversified speciality departments, and stores which are.
architecturally designed to fit into the neighborhood they serve. At the
corner of Lincoln and Gilbert they propose to build a 36,000-square foot market
which would provide an assortment of merchandise not currently available a= one
place within the trading area it would serve. He remarked that he believed
this supermarket would be an asset to the community and that Ralphs Grocery
Company has never intended to enter a new neighborhood if the nearby residents
did not want the store. He assured Council Members and those in the audience
that his company is aware of, and responsive to, environmental concerns and
hopes to be able to respond to these. He noted that the problems pointed out
in this particular project, noise, drainage and traffic, are not new to his
company; that they cope with these matters every day.
Mr. Allenbaugh stated that he is personally knowledgeable of =he subject
trade area, having been an Anaheim resident for 16 years at 2350 West Broadway,
and also feels that he shares the social responsibility of preserving a quality
of life in Anaheim. He reported that as a result of the meeting held with
members of the Gilbert Homeowners Association to discuss =heir concerns, he
believes most of these can be met. He advised that they have voluntarily
agreed to limit truck deliveries to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. In connection with the children traveling to and from school through this
immediate area, he noted that this supermarket would not open until 9:00 a.m.,
well after the start of school, and that the hours between 2:00 and 3:30 p.m.
when children are traveling home are one of the slowest times of day in any
supermarket.
Mr. Allenbaugh stated that there is a problem with traffic congestion on
Gilbert Street during certain hours of the day and that this proposed shopping
center certainly will not help that situation, but neither will it make l= much
worse. He reported on detailed traffic studies performed by their own
consultants which indicate that only an additional 600 vehicles would be added
to the current 7,600 vehicles per day. He stated that pursuant to the
information given him at the meeting with the homeowners that the traffic
signal at Broadway and Gilbert would not be installed this year, he had offered
to install this signal light at a cost of $36,000. Although this would have a
small impact on the traffic at Lincoln and Gllber~m it would improve the safety
for school children and pedestrians at that intersection. Mr. Allenbaugh
stated that they had brought architects and engineers to the meeting this date
to discuss any of the technical aspects; that they are prepared to answer
questions and show a full slide presentation if necessary and Council so
desires.
In response to questions regarding the direction in which the Council
would like the hearing to proceed, Councilman Seymour remarked that the three
major issues are noise, traffic and drainage and suggested these be addressed.
Mr. James A. Wood, Vice President in charge of construction, Ralphs
Grocery Company, responded to these issues as follows: That the traffic
surveys and calculations which are based on information provided by the City of
Anaheim Traffic Division indicate that the net increase will be 600 cars per
day al=hough many more cars than that would come to the shopping center, most
7 5- 1044
City tlall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1975, 1~30 P.M.
of these trips would be of automobiles which would be considered diversionary
rather than special trips to the area; that insofar as the safety of children
enroute to school is concerned, grades 1 to three are bussed and grades 4 to 6
would be crossing Lincoln as well as those students walking to the high school;
that the market would not open until 9:00 a.m. and the hours between 2:00 and
3:00 p.m. are very slow in a supermarket; and that they do intend to comply
with all City standards concerning noise, no waivers have been requested.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Wood stated that specifically the
increased number of vehicles estimated on Gilbert as a result of this project
is 600 per day, which would bring the current figure of 7,600 to 8,200 vehicles
per day on that street.
Mr. Wood stated that his firm had engaged Mr. John Houten, Acoustical
Engineer, to assist them in preparation of this development. He noted that
generally the noise problem with this type of development is from roof-mounted
heating and air conditioning equipment, but that it is Ralphs Grocery Company's
policy to place all such equipment inside of their buildings, and there would
be no exposed equipment whatsoever. As a result of sound level readings taken
at Lincoln and Gilbert, it has been determined that this project will be far
below the accepted commercial sound levels as stated in the sound objectives
for the City of Anaheim and close to the current level in that particular
residential area. In addition, he pointed out that they will not have a
compactor at this location and have agreed to restrict truck deliveries as
noted previously. He explained that he would expect it would require four
large delivery trucks per day to service this market so that there would be
what is termed a "single event" noise lasting between one and one-half to three
minutes at a time when sound levels would reach a point noticeable to the
adjacent residential area. tie stated that this is not normally the type of
noise which causes problems to residents. In addition there will be a wall and
berm with landscaping to absorb noise from the trucks at this south boundary.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Wood indicated that it is estimated
the sound level on the opposite side of the fence from this project would be 57
dBA for not more than 30 minutes during the day. He noted that this is almost
identical with current sound level readings at the property line which are 60
dBA, continuous. IQ. Woods stated that design criteria for this or any other
project would require that it be built to a 10-year storm specification, or to
accommodate 2.5 inches of rain in one hour. They estimate that the impact of
drainage from their site down Gilbert Street would be 1% more than there is
currently and this would not cause the curbs to overflow.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's question regarding the use of
refrigerated trucks which emit noise levels of 70 to 75 dBA and whether or not
these would have to wait for an hour prior to unloading, both Messrs. Woods and
Allenbaugh explained that there would be a double-dock unloading area which
would make it highly unlikely that a truck would have to wait any length of
time for unloa.ding, as this is not an economical business practice.
Mayor Thom called for those in favor or opposition who wished to speak.
Mr. Irving Pickler, 2377 West Mall Avenue, Anaheim, President of the
Gilbert tIomeowners Association advised that they had previously submitted a
petition with signatures from 181 out of 222 homes adjoining this development
who are in opposition to same. He stressed that this particular property is
designated on the Anaheim General Plan for medium density residential uses and
that it is the developer who is asking this be changed to a commercial zone.
Mr. Pickler pointed out that although the environmental impact report goes
into great detail to discuss the impact of the proposed project on wildlife,
birds, etc., and into investigation to determine whether there might be
anything of archeological interest, it does not discuss the impact on people
who live in the immediate surrounding area.
In response to Mr. Pickler's comments, Mayor Thom pointed out that there
are State guidelines for environmental impact reports which have subsequently
been adopted by the City, which set standards to be met in these reports and it
is these that require the items he mentioned to be discussed.
75-1045
City Itall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Myrna Vachon, 2380 West Mall Avenue, advised that one of the reasons
the homeowners are protesting the proposed encroachment into their residential
area with this project is that all of the facilities being offered in that
project are already immediately available. She read from Page No. 4 of
Environmental Impact Report No. 155 entitled "Demographics" which outlines the
market area from which the patrons would be drawn to this shopping center.
Mrs. Vachon displayed an enlargement of this area which she had prepared (the
subject market area having boundaries of La Palma Avenue to the north, Cerritos
to the south, Euclid Avenue and Beach Boulevard to the east and west). She
pointed out that there are already existing within that market profile area 15
major supermarkets~ 11 pharmacies, 19 financial institutions, 36 Junior markets
and 27 liquor stores. (The locations of these establishments were marked on
the display maps.) Mrs. Vachon contended that this demonstrates there is no
real need for additional shopping facilities in that area.
Mrs. Vachon also commented that in E.I.R. No. 155, Page No. 8, in
discussing traffic circulation it is noted that most of the traffic expected to
be generated by this project will be diverted traffic rather than new traffic.
She stated that this means automobiles which previously traveled to the 15
major supermarkets distributed throughout this profile area would be diverted
into her neighborhood.
In conclusion, Mrs. Vachon related that presently she and her family
cannot use their patio to entertain because of the existing noise and she
contended that if the subject project is developed this condition will become
worse.
Councilman Seymour asked Mrs. Vachon what she would consider an acceptable
alternative for development on subject property.
Mrs. Vachon stated that she felt a mobile home park would be preferable
since the residents of these average only one and one-quarter cars per unit; or
secondly she would prefer a garden type office complex.
Mr. Marvin A. Freitag, 2437 Transit Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he felt
the City Council should deny this request for zone change since the conclusions
made concerning traffic and water runoff are not valid. Mr. Freita§'s main
concern was that the proposed project would increase the traffic on Gilbert
Street to an intolerable level and would increase traffic at the intersection
of Gilbert and Lincoln by 8%. He voiced concern as to how the restriction
regarding truck access being taken at the main driveway on Lincoln Avenue would
be enforced.
In considering the drainage to be expected from the proposed development,
Mr. Freitag pointed out that the parking lot will be paved, that there will be
a tiled roof, and that only 13% of the site would be used for landscaping which
could absorb any water. In his opinion, therefore, development of this 7-acre
parcel would generate a great deal of runoff water.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Freitag concurred with the previous
suggestion that a mobile home park would be a satisfactory use for the
property. He also suggested that it might be developed as a residential unit~
perhaps on smaller lots.
Mayor Thom pointed out that it would be difficult to market residential
property with frontage on Lincoln Avenue.
Mrs. Jacquelyn Dvorman, 2433 West Transit Avenue, related that she teaches
a course in urban land planning and that this particular project violates
everything she teaches. She pointed out that there are overlapping commercial
services; that it would represent a commercial intrusion into a residential
area, increasing noise pollution and traffic congestion. Her main concern in
opposition to this project, however, is the number of school children who must
pass this property enroute to school. She pointed out that all of the children
who live in those homes south of the subject site attend Brookhurst 3unior High
School and this was not mentioned in the E.I.R. She stressed that to most of
the homeowners in that area who are also parents, the safety of their children
is a major concern.
75- 1046
City .Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2; 1975; 1:30 P.M.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mrs. Dvorman stated that she felt a mobile
home park would be the perfect solution for this property since it would
generate a minimum amount of additional traffic.
Mr. Dean Graham, 133 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, advised that he lives
directly across the street from the south end of the proposed development.
Mr. 'Graham pointed out the following major areas of concern in opposition to
this project: That the E.I.R. gives the impression that 180 single-family
homes on the north side of Lincoln Avenue are hidden behind and buffered by an
88 by lO0-foot commercial office buildin§; that since at the present time the
intersection of Lincoln and Gilbert has 22% of the conglomerate traffic, it is
hard to believe this intersection will receive only 11% of the increase as
stated in the E.I.R.; that it is inconceivable Gilbert Street could handle
10,000 cars per day which is 50% of the amount of traffic on a major arterial
such as State College Boulevard; that Gilbert Street all the way from Lincoln
Avenue to Ball Road is zoned exclusively residential except for two churches;
that the ambient noise level currently is between 45 and 70 dBA and since sound
energy is logarithmic in character he did not think readings taken after this
project is complete could be within the reasonable range of 45 dBA at night and
55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; that heavy refrigerator trucks produce
noise levels of 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, and since refrigerated trucks
are 43% of the total, these would create quite an environmental impact on the
neighborhood despite the proposed mitigating measures of berm and block wall
since the trucks will not be parked but will be accelerating to go up and down
the loading ramps; and that there is no assurance the trucks will utilize only
the main driveway as stated.
In conclusion, Mr. Graham stated that Gilbert Street is a residential
street which would be greatly impacted by this project and that some use should
be found which is more compatible than what is proposed. He also suggested
that a legal interpretation should be made as to what an "extended period" is
in relationship to noise levels.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Coalition of Anaheim Leaders (COAL),
131 La Paz Street, Anaheim, stated that at their November 9, 1975 meeting a
motion was passed unanimously to support the Gilbert Homeowners Association in
their position of protest to this zone change from medium density to CL on
subject property.
Mr. Sherill Pohlmann, 2333 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he is
100% in favor of the proposed project since, in his opinion, it would help to
alleviate the traffic problem at the intersection of Gilbert and Lincoln. In
discussing other potential uses for the property, Mr. Pohlmann stated that the
development of two-story apartments would create more problems for the home-
owners in terms of parking on the streets and that the subject property is too
small to make a mobile home park a viable economic pro~ect. Because of the
recreational amenities which must be included in these parks, they would
require at least 20 acres.
Mr. Don Ralston, 138 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, one of the applicants
for subject reclassification remarked that approximately one-third to one-half
of his residential property will act as a buffer zone between the shopping
center and adjacent homes on the next street which is Transit Avenue. He
advised that he intends to continue living in his residence at that location.
He related that they have spent much time and money in surveys and studies as
to the potential uses of this property. Mr. Ralston advised that he is most
impressed with Ralphs Grocery Company (Federated Department Stores) and their
attitude and reputation in development and operation of their markets.
Mr. Ralston stated that the problem with a mobile home park for this site
is that these generally attract senior citizens and these people would not like
to live in a mobile home on Lincoln Avenue at Gilbert any more than a homeowner
would like to live on that busy street corner.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council in favor or
in opposition and there being no response, he offered the applicant an
opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Allenbaugh stated that he did not intend to try to convince the
homeowners that the traffic circumstances on Gilbert Street would be improved
75- 1047
City Hall~ AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2; 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
as a result of the project. He stated he could assure the homeowners that
there would be no Ralphs trucks using that street for access to the project
inasmuch as they can and do control their own trucks. Furthermore with the
manner in which the driveway is laid out it would be impossible for large
trailer trucks to use that driveway and negotiate the turn into the receiving
area. No trash pickup would be made at night. He stated that they do operate
stores in many fine communities and are knowledgeable of the problems of
operating adjacent to residential areas and can cope with them. He referred to
their most recent project ln Anahelm at Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street as an
example of the type of project and landscaping they would provide.
Mr. Allenbaugh corrected a mistake made earlier in comments made by
Mrs. Vachon, that there are 44,000 people living in the two mile radius defined
as their trade area for this project rather than 4,400 as stated. He remarked
that their market research clearly shows there is about $1,000,000 worth of
grocery business available within that area.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Allenbaugh stated that their
latest plan was to have only one driveway onto Gilbert Street to be used for
both ingress and egress and that the site would not be viable for them if this
one driveway were restricted to ingress only.
Mayor Thom closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the Traffic Engineer as to how the median
island, which is one of the conditions recommended to be imposed on this
project, would affect the traffic at Gilbert and Lincoln. Mr. Singer explained
that this particular condition would not affect the length of that traffic
storage pocket at all.
Councilman Seymour requested that the Traffic Engineer relay to the
Council the traffic impact on Gilbert Street if this particular seven and one-
half acre parcel were developed with medium density apartments; commercial
office buildings or mobile homes as compared with this proposed commercial use.
Mr. Singer replied that it is estimated with the proposed project there
would be approximately 5,600 vehicle trips per day to the site, 600 of which
would impact Gilbert Street; that a commercial office complex would generate
2,400 vehicles per day based on 40 trips per 1,000 square feet; that with a
medium density apartment complex there would be approximately 1,600 vehicle
trips per day of which approximately 40% to 50% would impact Gilbert Street,
the remaining on Lincoln Avenue; with mobile homes the traffic impact would be
very minimal, such a park might generate only 350 trips per day; a single-
family residential use would also have minimal impact, approximately 480 to 500
trips per day.
Councilman Seymour asked if Mr. Singer agreed with the traffic survey data
provided by the applicant indicating an average of 600 additional vehicle trips
per day on Gilbert Street to which he received an affirmative reply.
In answer to Councilman Sneegas' inquiry regarding the economic
feasibility of seven and one-half acre mobile home parks, Mr. Thompson replied
that the smaller acreage parks are generally travel trailer type parks. Most
developers prefer a mobile home park in the vicinity of 20 acres or more
because of the recreational requirements, plus the current popular sizes in
mobile homes.
During Council discussion, Councilman Sneegas indicated that he would not
like to see a density at this location indicative of apartments and could not
visualize this property developed into RS-5000 homes. He stated that he was
concerned that the southeast portion of the property which juts down adjacent
to the residential area and abuts the Gemco property not be used for parking in
the future. He inquired whether there is any barrier between the two
properties, and Mr. Woods replied that there is a chain-link fence separating
the property.
Councilman Seymour stated that his major concerns regarding this project
related to noise, traffic and drainage. He noted that between the meeting held
with the homeowners association and Ralphs Grocery Company representatives plus
this hearing today, he has become convinced that the noise and drainage
75- 1048
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
problems could be mitigated to the degree they will not create a major impact
on the adjoining residential neighborhood. However this leaves the traffic
problem and he could not see how this could be resolved. He noted that it
appears from the statistics presented by the Traffic Engineer that the only
land uses which would produce a lesser traffic impact on Gilbert Street than
the current proposal would be a low-medium density residential project such as
condominiums with 8.7 units to the acre or a mobile home park and he agreed a
mobile home park on seven and one-half acres would be unusual.
Councilman Seymour stated that he had taken time to review the Ralphs
Market recently built at Lincoln and Sunkist Street and congratulated the
Ralphs representative present on a beautiful project. He noted that he even
stood on the opposite side of the wall and was not unduly bothered by noise
from the trucks; that the landscaping was quite well done. However, Councilman
Seymour remarked that the Sunkist Street and Lincoln Avenue intersection is
rather different from the one under consideration and, as much as he would like
to see the Ralphs Grocery Company build this additional project in Anaheim, he
just did not think it would fit in this particular residential area primarily
because of the anticipated increase in traffic on Gilbert Street. If Ralphs
Grocery Company felt they could proceed with the project without any access to
Gilbert Street, then he indicated he could consider the project favorably. He
noted they had already advised that this site would not be practical for them
without the additional access on Gilbert Street. He also indicated he would be
favorable to offering the applicant two weeks' time to redesign their plans to
eliminate that Gilbert Street access if they thought this were possible.
Again Mr. Allenbaugh advised they have studied the ingress and egress
problem on Gilbert and without both ingress and egress, the project is not a
viable one.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour stated that if Council
action determines that this property is not approved for rezoning to the CL
Zone, he would request that the Planning Commission review the potential uses
for this property and report back to the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL Ib~ACT REPORT NO. 155 - CERTIFICATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, E.I.R. No. 155 having been reviewed
by the City Staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in
compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California
Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and
belief does hereby certify that E.I.R. No. 155 is in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. MOTION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-615: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-615 for
adoption denying Reclassification No. 75-76-5, based upon traffic conditions.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF A~NAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HERE-
INAFTER DESCRIBED. (75-76-5)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-615 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Planning Commission be directed to
review this particular seven and one-half acre parcel and consider the specific
potential uses on same and make recommendations to the City Council as to what
the uses might be so that the traffic problems might be reduced to the greatest
possible extent on Gilbert Street. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council took a ten-minute recess. (5:30 P.M.)
75- 1049
City Itall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1§75, 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City
Council being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (5:40 P.M.)
SANTA ANA RIVER RECREATIONAL TRAILS; Plans and special provisions for the Santa
Aha River Recreation Trails from Katella Avenue to Tustin Avenue were submitted
for Council information and review, together with communication dated November
18, 1975, from J. W. Williams, Branch Manager, Orange County Environmental
Management Agency Development Division, advising that said plans and special
provisions had been approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and
bids would be opened and considered on December 8, 1975. Also submitted and
reviewed was memorandum report dated November 21, 1975, from the City Engineer,
recommending approval of said documents.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, plans and
special provisions for the Santa Ama River Recreation Trails from Katella
Avenue to Tustin Avenue were approved by the City Council, as recommended by
the City Engineer. Council Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
.TENTATIVE MAP; TRACT Nos. 8866;. REVISION NO. 2 AND 9097: Developer, George
Iteltzer, property located between Romneya Drive and La Palma Avenue, west of
State College Boulevard; Tract No. 8866, Revision No. 2, containing 45 proposed
RS-5000 zoned lots and Tract No. 9097 containing 118 proposed RS-5000 zoned
lots.
The request of the developer for permission to develop in two phases
pursuant to the two maps as submitted was continued from the meetings of
November 18 and November 25, 1975 to this date because of concerns of adjacent
area residents regarding the expansion of Edison Park and pending negotiations
between the City Council and developer for acquisition of additional land for
said park.
Letter dated November 26, 1975 from Cal Queyrel, Anacal Engineering, was
submitted advising that Mr. Heltzer desires to withdraw his request for
approval of the two Tracts, Nos. 8866, Revision No. 2, and 9097, as submitted,
and intends to develop in one phase, pursuant to Tentative Map No. 8866,
Revision No. 1 as approved October 7, 1975.
Councilman Seymour reported that he had several telephone conversations
during the past week with Mr. Heltzer, the net outcome of which was that he was
informed the cost for one acre of ground from this project is now approximately
$117,400. Councilman Seymour related the justifications given for this cost,
the fact that there is a $2,000,000 loan on the property against which the
owner is paying interest and the necessity for construction of the storm drain
by the developer, which amounts to approximately $250,000. He reported he was
unable to convince Mr. Heltzer that it might be worth the difference between
the $85,000 previously given as the value of the property and $117,400 to him
to be able to develop this project in two phases.
Mayor Thom noted then that the question before the Council is whether or
not they wish to permit the developer to withdraw the two ~entative tract maps
and requested legal opinion as to what reason the Council might have for not
allowing this request to be withdrawn.
b~. Watts replied that in connection with a proposed tentative map (or an
amendment to a tentative map) the Council may have another opportunity to
determine whether they wish to opt for dedication of land as opposed to in-lieu
fees. This is the only basis upon which the Council might wish not to permit
withdrawal of these tentative maps at this point. He noted however that there
is no legal precedent of such an instance and that if Council determines to
take that action his office will do whatever they can to sustain it. He noted
that the Planning Department calculates the land which would be dedicated
instead of in-lieu fees for these tracts would amount to 40,000 square feet,
slightly less than one acre.
Extensive discussion was held between the Council Members and Mr. Joe
Hancock, 1145 North Liberty Lane, Anaheim, and Mr. 3erry Moore, 1141 North
Acacia, Anaheim. During discussion Mr. Hancock offered legal opinion on
matters pertaining to land development and vested rights from the California
Construction Law Manual.
75-1050
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Moore suggested that the Council consider condemnation of two acres of
property for expansion of the park. The idea was discussed and it was pointed
out by the City Attorney that in eminent domain proceedings a jury makes the
determination as to the cost of land and it is most likely that the cost
factors already outlined in connection with this property would be set forth.
Once this value determination has been made, the City would be required to pay
that price and if it is decided at that time not to purchase the property, the
City would then be required to pay all legal fees.
After considerable discussion, the Council Members felt that condemnation
proceedings would not be in order for this property. Councilman Seymour stated
that he is prepared to admit that the Council made a mistake in connection with
the approval of the tentative nmp, but is hesitant to enter into any litigation
which might well cost the taxpayers more than the fair market value for that
property.
Additional informal discussion was held between Council Members and
residents of the Edison Park area present in the audience as to whether or not
there is any other vacant land available in their immediate vicinity which
might be acquired and developed to some recreational use in order to supplement
the athletic facilities at Edison Park.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (6:25 P.M.)
Councilman Seymour moved to permit the withdrawal of Tentative Map, Tract
rios. 8866, Revision No. 2, and 9097 with the provision that park in-lieu fees
in an amount equivalent to those generated by Tract No. 8866, Revision No. 1,
be specifically set aside, with the appropriate department to investigate the
purchase and/or development of another site in the immediate Edison Park area
for park purposes or that these funds be used for improvement in Edison Park.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Pebley
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour also indicated that he was prepared to utilize funds
from the Council Contingency Fund for this purpose, above and beyond the amount
of in-lieu fees, to a reasonable extent, to resolve this problem.
Prior to leaving this item, Councilman Seymour requested that those area
residents interested in the park problem leave their names and telephone
numbers so that the City Council might work together with them in seeking an
alternate site for recreational facilities to supplement those provided at
Edison Park.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, 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. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to
the insurance carrier:
a. Claim submitted by Scott Fountain for injuries and damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions of City vehicle, on or about September 17,
1975.
b. Claim submitted by H. A. Martin for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of condition of road, on or about November 6, 1975.
c. Claim submitted by Vincent J. Spingola for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of power surge by the City of Anaheim Electrical
Division, on or about November 18, 1975.
d. Claim submitted by Arthur Roquet for loss purportedly sustained as a
result of improper turnoff of electricity, on or about November 21, 1975.
2. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits were granted subject to
the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit for three coin operated machines to be
located at The Tavern, 727 North Anaheim Boulevard (Roy L. Kelley, Applicant).
b. Amusement Devices Permit for three coin operated amusement devices at
The Ball, 1116 Fountain Way (Edward A. ]~lbert, Applicant).
75- 1051
City Hall, Anaheim,.. California r, COUNCIL .MINUTES - December 2, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
c. Amusement Devices Permit for two coin operated amusement devices to be
located at The Marquis, 1203 West Lincoln Avenue (Kenneth P. Babcock,
Applicant).
d. Amusement Devices Permit for one coin operated amusement device to be
located at Never on Sunday, 2810 West Lincoln Avenue (Kenneth P. Babcock,
Applicant).
e. Amusement Devices Permit for one coin operated amusement device to be
located at the Alpine Room, 628 West Orangewood Avenue (Kenneth P. Babcock,
Applicant).
f. Amusement Devices Permit for one coin operated amusement device to be
located at H. Salt Esq., 2966 West Ball Road (Kenneth P. Babcock, Applicant).
g. Amusement Devices Permit for one coin operated amusement device to be
located at Anaheim Vacation Park, 311 North Beach Boulevard (Kenneth P.
Babcock, Applicant).
h. Amusement Devices Permit for three coin operated amusement devices to
be located at the Golden Key, 2625 West Lincoln Avenue (Kenneth P. Babcock,
Applicant).
i. Amusement Devices Permit for one coin operated amusement device to be
located at the First Cabin, 1228 South Brookhurst Street (Kenneth P. Babcock,
Applicant).
J. Amusement Devices Permit for two coin operated amusement devices t° be
located at Porky's, 130 West Katella Avenue (Kenneth P. Babcock, Applicant).
3. MIRALOMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT -....yORK ORDER NO. 740-B - CONTRACT CHANGE
ORDER NO. 1: On report and recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Or'er
No."l to Work Order No. 740-B in the amount of $3,276.72, increasing the
original contract price to $50,373.56 was authorized.
4. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. City of Orange - Resolution No. 4232 - Condemning the resolution of
the United Nations falsely accusing Zionism as being racist and urging that the
United Nations rescind this resolution.
b. Greyhound Lines, Inc. - NOTICE - Re Application No. 56073, filed
November 17, 1975 with the California PUC, requesting approval of a proposal to
increase its passenger bus fares and package express rates 9% t° offset known
expense increases, principally wages and wage-related.
c. Before the PUC - Application of Douglas Bus Lines, Inc., for authority
to increase fares for the transportation of passengers on regular-scheduled
routes in Los Angeles and Orange Counties in order to offset extraordinary
increases in fuel.
d. Canyon Area General Planning Task Force - Minutes - November 11, 1975.
e. Community Center Authority - Minutes - November 3, 1975.
f. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of October, 1975, for
the City Treasurer and the Customer Service Division.
Council Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-616 THROUGH 75R-622: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
Nos. 75R-616 through 75R-622, 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. 75R-616 - WORK ORDER NO. 765-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
TO WIT: WEBSTER AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, S/O ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 765-A; APPROVING Tt~ DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIM CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDanCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING ~D DIRECTING TIIE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - December
31, 1975, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-617 - FINAL ACCEPTANCEI WORK ORDER NO. 734-B: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND
THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
7 5- 1052
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL ~D WATER, AND THE PERFOR-
~kNCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TIlE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING
AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALL ROAD AND EMPIRE STREET. IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 734-B. (Baxter-Griffin Company, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-618 - FINAL ACCEPT~NCE~ WORK ORDER NO. 733-B: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AN~IEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING Tt~ COMPLETION AND
TttE FU~ISHING OF ALL PL~{T, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND TIlE PERFOR-
MANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC~
IMPROVEmeNT, TO WIT; THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGttTING
AT THE INTERSECTION OF SUNKIST STREET AND WAGNER AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 733-B. (Baxter-Griffin Company, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-619 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE~ WORK ORDER NO. 732-A: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING TIlE COMPLETION ~D
THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING PO~R, FUEL ~ND WATER, AND THE PERFOR-
MA2~CE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEb~NT, TO WIT: THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING
AT THE INTERSECTION OF CERRITOS AVENUE AND NUTWOOD STREET, IN THE CITY OF
AN~{EIM, WORK ORDER NO. 732-A. (Baxter-Griffin Company, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-620 - FINAL ACCEPT.ANCE~ WORK ORDER NO. 794: A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING TI~ COMPLETION AND
THE FURNISHING OF ALL PL~T, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFOR-
MJ~NCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEmeNT, TO WIT: CONSTRUCTION OF RESTROOM, STORAGE AND MULTI-PURPOSE
FACILITY AT MANZANITA PARK, IN THE CITY OF ANAHElI, WORK ORDER NO. 794.
(Slater Construction)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-621 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE~ ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02: A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING TIlE
COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRAI~SPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER,
AJ'~D THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOW-
ING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SLURRY SEAL CONTRACT II, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02. (Pavement Coatings Company)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-622 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE~ WORii ORDER 740-B: A RESOLUTION OF
TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION A~D
TI{E FUPd.]ISHING OF ALL PLA~T, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS ~ND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES A~{D TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFOR-
MANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVE~.~ZNT, TO WIT; MIR~TLOPtA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, E/O MILLER STREET TO
KRAEMER BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 740-B. (R. J. Noble
Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ME}~ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-616 through 75R-622, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held November 10, 1975, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council information and consideration.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City
Council authorized the actions pertaining to environmental impact requirements
as recommended by the City Planning Commission and sustained the actions taken
by the City Planning Commission in connection with the following applications:
(Item Nos. 1 through 15)
75-1053
City Hall; .Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2; 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EX~TION$; The Planning
Director has determined that the proposed activities in the following listed
zoning applications fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Glasses 1 or 11
of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental
impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to
file an environmental impact report:
Conditional Use Permit No. 1569
Variance No. 2746
Conditional Use Permit No. 1578
Variance No. 2750
Variance No. 2745
Conditional Use Permit No. 1576
Variance No. 2749
Variance No. 2753
2. ENVIRONMENTAL II~PACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The Planning Com-
mission recommends to the City Council that the subject projec~ in the
following listed zoning application be declared exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act:
Variance No. 2752
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1569: Application by Golden West Equity Prop-
erties, Inc., to permit automobile repair and forklift maintenance on ML (SC)
zoned property at 5409 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-224, granted
said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
4. VARIANCE NO. 2745: Submitted by Harold Sewell to construct a bank on CL
zoned property at 721 North Euclid Street with Code waiver of:
a. Minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-225, granted
said variance, subject to one condition.
5. VARIANCE NO. 2746: Submitted by John Ritter and Mary M. Hoover to
establish an automobile diagnostic and service center on CG zoned property at
1107 North Brookhurst Street.
Variance No. 2746 was withdrawn by the petitioner and no action was taken
on same by the City Planning Commission.
.~. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1576: Submitted by Robert D. Perry to permit an
automobile engine and transmission repair facility on ML zoned property located
at 1745 South Claudina Way.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-232, granted
said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1578: Submitted by Grand Marnier Company to
expand an existing drive-thru restaurant on CL zoned property at 430 South
Euclid Street, with Code waiver of:
a. Minimum number of parking spaces.
In connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1578, prior to action being
taken by the City Council on this Consent Calendar Item, the Deputy City Clerk
read a statement from Public Works Director Thornton Piersall indicating that
he has a financial interest in subject company, Grand Marnier Company.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-233, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1578, in part, denying the requested waiver, subject
to conditions.
8. VARIanCE NO. 2749: Submitted by William E. Powers to construct a garage
addition on RS-7200 zoned property at 1779 Norfolk Lane, with Code waiver of:
a. Minimum front setback on a cul-de-sac.
75- 1054
City }{all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~, 1975; 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-234, granted
said variance unconditionally.
9. VARIANCE NO. 2750: Submitted by Oscar Lauderback to permit an existing
sign on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2219 West Lincoln Avenue with
Code waivers of:
a. Maximum number of signs.
b. Minimum distance between signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-235, granted
said variance for a period of one year, subject to conditions.
10. VARIANCE NO. 2752: Submitted by J. Kent and Karen Ann Bewley and James W.
Schmidt to establish an automotive diagnostic shop on CL zoned property at 117
South Western Avenue, with Code waivers of:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Required site screening.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-236, granted
said variance for a period of one year, subject to conditions.
11. VARIANCE NO. 2753: Submitted by John H. Scudder to establish commercial
offices on ML zoned property at 1550 and 1600 South Anaheim Boulevard with Code
waiver of:
a. Permitted uses in the ML Zone.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-237, granted
said variance, subject to conditions.
12. BROADWAY STO~.! DRAIN PROJECT: Request of C. R. Nelson, Environmental
~.~nagement Agency, for determination as to the conformity of the Broadway Storm
Drain Project with the Anaheim General Plan, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-238,
determined that subject project is in conformance with the Anaheim General
Plan.
13. KI~ERLY STORM CHANNEL RECONSTRUCTION: Request of J. W. Williams,
Environmental Management Agency for determination as to the conformity of the
Kimberly Storm Channel Reconstruction with the Anaheim General Plan, was sub-
mitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-240
determined that the project is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan.
14. RI~ERDA~.E REST STOP: Request of C. R. Nelson, Environmental M~nagement
Agency, for determination as to the conformity of the Riverdale Rest Stop with
the Anaheim General Plan, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-239,
determined that subject project is in conformance with the Anaheim General
Plan.
15. E.I.R. - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - STREET WIDENING PROJECT: On recom-
mendation by the City Planning Commission, the City Council determined that tile
City of Anaheim Public Works Department project to widen the north side of
Lincoln Avenue from Sunkist Street to a point approximately 550 feet west of
Sunkist Street, will have no significant effect on the environment and is,
therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report.
16. TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. 8466~ REVISION NO. 1 (E.I.R. NO. 110):
Developer, Anaheim Ilills, Inc., property located southerly of Canyon Rim Road,
northeast of Nohl Ranch Road; containing 36 proposed RS-tIS-10,000 (SC) zoned
lots.
75-1055
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held November 24, 1975,
approved said tentative map, subject to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
2. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
3. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange
County Recorder.
4. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
5. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary
street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
7. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, sufficient
grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading shall
be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site
drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance
shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed
prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities
shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated
condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required
drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff
waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate
disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be
the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the
ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building
inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements
may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
8.. 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.
9. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall
be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
water originating from this project being carried into the Santa Aha River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
10. That prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, a parcel
map to record the subdivision of subject property from Anaheim Hills shall be
approved by the City of Anaheim and recorded in the office of the Orange County
Recorder.
11. That prior to the approval of the final tract map, the specific site
plsns shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom the City
Council, finding that Tentative Map, Tract No. 8466, Revision No. 1, together
with its design and improvement is, consistent with the Anaheim General Plan,
approved said tentative map, subject to the recommendations of the City
Planning Commission. Council Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: The Administrative Assistant reported on informal bids
received for the purchase of the following equipment and recommended acceptance
of the low bid in each instance:
Bid No. 3018 - 1/2 ton pickup, McCoy Ford - $4,470.29, including tax; four
3/4 ton pickup trucks, Hendricks GMC, $20,591.94, including tax.
Bid No. 3015 - automatic single phase/poly phase A.C. watthour meter
comparator, Eastern Specialty, Inc., $25,572.50, including tax.
Bid No. 3022 - three-phase transformer, Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
$16,989.68, including tax.
75- 1056
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2; 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City
Council accepted the low bids as shown above and authorized purchases in the
amounts indicated. Council Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
SPONSORSHIP - ANAHEIM PACIFIC STATES B~D REVIEW: Invoice from Awards Fair, 100
South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, 92802, supplier of trophies at the Anaheim
Pacific States Band Review was submitted in the amount of $1~106.64.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council authorized an additional appropriation of $106.64 from the Council
Contingency Fund to cover the additional cost over the $1,000 previously
approved from Community Promotional Funds. Council Members Kaywood and Pebley
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-623 - EXTENDING TERMS OF AGREEMENT NO. C.L.D. NO. 10833: (Los
Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company.)
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-623 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A RIDER
EXTENDING THE TERM OF THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT, DESIGNATED C.L.D. NO. 10833, WITH
THE LOS ANGELES AND SALT LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY AND ITS LESSEE, UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
EXTENSION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEb~ERS: Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-623 duly passed and adopted.
JOINT MEETING - LIBRARY BOARD: The Deputy City Clerk submitted a letter dated
November 24, 1975 from Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz, Chairman of the Library Board,
requesting a joint meeting with the City Council.
By general consent, Council Members agreed to meet with the Library Board
and directed that the Board forward a suggested time and date.
O?~INANCE NO. 3486: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3486 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION
14.32.190 OF THE AN~{EIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (No parking any
time - Manchester Avenue, both sides from southbound Santa Aha Freeway on-ramp
east of Harbor Boulevard to Orangewood Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ME}'~ERS: Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3486 duly passed and adopted.
QRDINANCE NO. 3487: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3487 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30 (6), RS-7200)
Roll Call Vote:
75-1057
City Iiall~ Anahelm~ California - CO~CIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES; COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT; COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3487 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3488: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3488 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE A/~AItEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-39 (3), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3489: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3489 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE AN~IMMUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-47, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 34.90: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3490 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-56 (1), RS-HS-10,000)
Miss Santalahti reported that the development in connection with
Reclassification No. 73-74-56 (1) was approved prior to the adoption of the
Revised Hillside Grading Ordinance and therefore, contains a requirement
regarding maintenance of common slope areas. She noted that this project does
contain extensive slope area and a homeowners association is mandatory for
maintenance of these. She reported that the City staff is basically satisfied
that the current Grading Ordinance will adequately cover the necessity for
slope maintenance.
Council Members indicated they agreed with staff in this matter.
ESTABLISID~NT OF TASK FORCE - CANYON SITE NO. 1; On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following members and alternates were
appointed to the Task Force to consider development of Canyon Site No. 1
(Pinney and Gerda Drives):
MEMBERS;
Mary Murphy, 412 Alderdale Circle
Bill Maxwell, 307 Starfire
Ron Trunk, 417 Brook Lane
Earl McManus, 5581Edgemar
Honore Stellhorn, 148 Lohrum Lane
Tom Cramer, 241Leandro
Marry McDermott, 130 Pinney Drive
Bill Hayes, 116 Lohrum Lane
Sherry Way, 130 Jerrllee Lane
Dale Woodward, 136 Pinney Drive
ALTERNATES:
Stan Makse, 5308 Bergh Drive
Richard Smestad, 155 Lohrum Lane
Council Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
APPOINTMenT - GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman ThoR, the City Council appointed Howard R. Bartholomew,
1518 West Cris Place, Anaheim, 92802, to the Golf Course Advisory Commission.
Council Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess to Executive
Session. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City
Council being present with the exception of Council Members Kaywood and Pebley.
(7:15 P.M.)
75- 1058
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed to 7;30 P.M. (7;15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 7;30 P.M.
PRESENT: COUNCIL ME~-~ERS: Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pebley
PRESENT: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY CLE~I: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Dan Van Dorpe
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 75-7A: To consider the abandonment of
a portion of Gain Street and erection of an appropriate buffer on the northerly
property line of Tract No. 6691.
Said public hearing was continued from the meeting of November 18, 1975 to
this time and date so that it could be held at an evening meeting.
Submitted for Council consideration in connection with this matter were:
excerpt from the City Planning Commission meeting held November 10, 1975
recommending that subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report, subject to the finding that the Planning Com-
mission has not had the privilege of input from the affected residents in the
area; report from the City Engineer dated November 5, 1975, recommending said
abandonment be denied; report from the Planning Department dated September 30,
1975; and a petition containing 85 signatures of residents in the area who are
in favor of the closure of Gain Street.
~yor Thom called for those individuals who wished to speak in favor of
the abandonment of a portion of Gain Street.
I-~rs. Nancy Brown, 2513 Chain Avenue, Anaheim, requested that those in the
audience who were actually homeowners within Tract No. 6691 stand and then
requested those who have a financial interest in the shopping center to stand.
She advised that the primary reason many of the homeowners feel the street
should be closed to vehicular traffic at the north end is the safety of their
children as well as the desire for a quiet residential neighborhood.
b~s. Brown noted that the developer indicates he might lose as much as 50% of
the business to that commercial shopping center as a result of the closure of
Gain Street, which indicates there will be increased traffic using Gain Street
as a result of that commercial development. She referred to the s~aff report
which indicates a cost factor of $16,850 in connection with this abandonment
and stated that the homeowners are not requesting that the City move water
mains, light fixtures, curbs and gutters, as mentioned in that cost figure, but
just to install a barrier which would prevent vehicular traffic and would
permit pedestrian access to Lincoln Avenue. She stated that the area residents
consider the traffic pattern permitting access from Gain Street to Lincoln
Avenue to be unsafe and noted that many vehicles fail to come to a complete
stop at the stop sign located at the intersection of Chain and Gain Streets.
Also speaking in favor of the closure of Gain Street for much the same
reasons were: Mr. James Mull, 215 South Gain Street; Judy Clark, 2517 West
Chain Street; Mrs. Glen Craig, 128 South Gain Street; Mr. Nick Talaganis, 221
South Gain Street; Pat Hayden, 2511 Chain Avenue; Kathy Winn, 214 Gain Street;
Thomas Bergen, 121 Gain Street.
Additional points emphasized by those property owners in their request for
closure of Gain Street were: that there is adequate access to housing Tract
No. 6691 for emergency vehicles from Broadway and that Lincoln Avenue is not
necessary for this purpose; that with the opening of the shopping center Gain
Street would be used by delivery trucks; that this access point to Lincoln
Avenue was not originally provided with the tract, but added two years later
and traffic circulation was not impaired during the period of time in which
there was no access to Lincoln Avenue; that the location of the shopping center
and street access to the tract as it is would increase the possibility of
burglaries; that the apartment houses located south of Broadway will eventually
require a signalized intersection at Broadway and Gain thereby increasing the
likelihood that Gain Street will become a commercial street; that the issue of
75- 1059
City Hall~ An..~.he!m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
convenience is not nearly as important as the safety, health and welfare of the
children and residents living in the tract; that a total number of 85 si§na-
tures were submitted on a petition in favor of closing the street reflecting 56
addressas within Tract No. 6691.
The b~yor called for those in opposition to the abandonment of a portion
of Gain Street who wished to speak.
Mr. Kenneth Zommick, Attorney representing Mr. Roy DeCell and Mr. Jack
Lane, indicated that paramount in the consideration of the closure of Gain
Street are the recommendation made by City staff since 1968 that this access
point to Lincoln Avenue remain open. Mr. Zommick noted that this access was
added to this tract at heavy cost to the developer and that it provides the
following: 1) improved circulation of passenger and emergency vehicles; 2) a
shorter distance to bus service; 3) assists in relief of traffic congestion at
peak hours; 4) that backup fire units would enter the tract from Lincoln and
that this access could also be used by paramedics for faster service; 5) that
it provides a shorter route to the nearest freeway on- and off-ramps.
Mr. Zommick stressed that substantial reliance has been placed on this~
existing access by the developers of the Anaheim Lincoln Center. They have
purchased the property, designed and constructed a shopping center, and entered
into long-term leases with tenants all in reliance upon the exis~in§ Gain
Street access to Tract No. 6691. He noted that there was no opposition to
the zoning or development plans for the shopping center when these were
presented before the Planning Commission and City Council in 1968 and 1975. He
remarked that decreasing traffic flow at the north end of Gain Street would
cause a concomitant increase in traffic at the south end.
Mr. Zommick advised in connection with the fence at the north boundary of
Tract No. 6691 that the original contractor received approval from the City
Planning Commission and City Council to erect that fence in 1968; and when his
client applied for and received affirmation of his development plans, included
in this application was mention of the fact that there was an existing fence on
the north property line of Tract No. 6691, separating it from the proposed
commercial development. He advised that it is considered a health hazard to
construct abutting or back-to-back fences because of the space in between which
collects rubbish and refuse. He reported that the developer has made an offer
to add two rows of blocks to the existing wall, but cannot make any guarantees
as to whether or not that existing fence will support these additional blocks.
The construction of a new block wall is a considerable expense which Mr.
Zommick contended would be unfair to add to the burden of the contractor at
this time since it was not considered in the original development plans.
b~. Keith Rosewitz, 2500 West Chain, challenged the discussion of the
issue of the block wall separating the residential from the commercial
property, noting that this public hearing was advertised as a hearing on the
abandonment of the north portion of Gain Street.
Mayor Thom assured Mr. Rosewitz that the Council intended to hear
citizens' concerns over both issues this evening, but determined that they
would conclude the discussion on the abandonment portion first.
The following also spoke, individually, in opposition to the closure of
Gain Street from its access point to Lincoln Avenue: Jeff Little, 2501 Chain
Avenue; Jim and Doris Goss, 2504 West Chain; Jack and Jean Van Skike, 2500
Transit Place; and Gene Fundum, 2508 Transit Place.
Additional points presented in opposition were; that many of those
automobiles which failed to come to a complete stop are driven by residents of
Tract No. 6691; that with the closure of Gain Street, emergency vehicles would
have to drive two-thirds of a mile farther to reach some of the homes in the
tract; that the additional driving for those homeowners within Tract No. 6691
which would be necessitated by the closure of Gain Street could result in 5,080
miles per year for a family with two automobiles which amounts to a lot of
expensive, wasted gasoline; that during the rainy season it is very difficult
to travel on Broadway because of the flooding problems and the only feasible
exit from this tract at these times is through Lincoln Avenue; that if the
northerly portion of Gain Street is closed, teenagers driving to school will
75- 1060
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Oec~mb~r 2, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
have to drive down ttampton and make a left turn onto Broadway which is not an
easy place to make this maneuver.
blr. Jeff Little also submitted a petition containing the signatures of 28
residents, representing 26 different homes in Tract No. 6691, in opposition to
the closure of Gain Street.
Mr. Robert McMichael, 1469 West Valencia, Fullerton, builder of the homes
in Tract No. 6691, advised that when their development plans were submitted to
the City Planning Commission and City Council in 1968 for this tract, a
condition was imposed that Gain Street be extended through to Lincoln Avenue
and that a left-turn pocket be installed on Lincoln Avenue for entrance onto
Gain Street. This condition required that he omit one lot from the tract, at a
cost of $6,000 and install $30,000 in street improvements from the north
boundary of the tract to Lincoln Avenue. He stated that if the Council
determined they are going to close off this access point, which would impair
the value of the commercial property on Lincoln Avenue, then he would like to
request a refund of the approximate $36,000 he had invested in compliance with
the City's condition.
Mayor Thom determined that sufficient evidence had been received both pro
and con to the abandonment of Gain Street and requested those who wished to
address the problem of the wall adjacent to the north boundary of Tract No.
6691 to come forward.
Mrs. Nancy Brown, 2513 Chain Street, advised that when she originally
purchased her home the fence along the property line was not a six-foot fence.
She advised that the reason none of the property owners affected by this fence
problem appeared at the public hearing concerning the shopping center
immediately adjacent and to the north of their property was that she had con-
tacted the City Attorney's Office and was informed that if the wall separating
their property from the commercial property was not six feet high, the
developer would be required to build his own six-foot high block wall.
Mrs. Brown stated that when construction began on the shopping center
site, the developer graded the property taking dirt away from the existing wall
so that it was a six-foot wall on his side, however the wall ranges between
five feet two inches to five feet six inches on the homeowners' side. This
wall currently affords them no privacy whatsoever, which situation will become
worse when this shopping center is operational. She stated that they had been
in contact with the developer, Mr. DeCell, several times and advised him that
they would agree to his adding two additional blocks on their wall if he would
accept responsibility for the safety of that wail for a one- to three-year
period, tie has refused to do that and consequently the homeowners have decided
not to permit an addition to the wall.
Mr. Chet Clark, 2517 West Chain, stated that he inspected the opposite
side of the wall behind his home after the grading had been accomplished and
noted that the ground was dug to a level below the cement foundation. In his
opinion, the wall is undermined and is no longer safe. He indicated that since
the developer will not accept the responsibility for the safety of the wall
once its height has been increased, he would not permit the developer to add
onto it since he did not think the homeowners should be responsible for any
potential problems or dangers to children.
Mrs. Judy Clark advised that when the City Inspector measured her wall he
did not measure it from her side and stated she would feel much safer in her
home if there were two walls as it would make it just that much more difficult
to get from the shopping center into her rear yard.
Mrs. Pat ttayden also related the attempts made at negotiation with Mr.
DeCell on the wall. She voiced the opinion that there would not be room for
trash and etc. to get in between the walls if they were built back-to-back.
Councilman Sneegas explained the necessity for twelve-inch trenches to be
installed as footings for a six-foot wall which means there will be a minimum
four- to eight-inch gap between the walls. He stated that back-to-back walls
are a totally unacceptable remedy to this problem insofar as he is concerned.
75- 106 1
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2a.1975~ 1:30 P'M'
At the conclusion of discussion on the wall between the shopping center
site and residential property to the south, Mayor Thom reiterated that the site
development standards in the Zoning Code requires that a block wall, six feet
above the highest grade level be installed between the commercial and resi-
dential land uses. If such a wall does not exist at this time it will have to
be constructed prior to final approval and/or occupancy of the shopping center.
It was further determined that tile existing fence is located on the
residential property and is consequently owned by the owners of those homes.
Mayor Thom advised that the developer would be held to the requiremen~ to
provide a wall which is six feet above the highest grade level, and however
this is accomplished would have to be negotiated between himself and the
property owners. If he wishes to add onto the existing wall, he would first
have to obtain their permission.
Mr. }~Michael explained that the existing fence is not six feet for its
entire length, in some places it is five feet two inches or five feet three
inches, and this was permitted by the Building Division at the time tile tract
was constructed to accommodate drainage. He noted that he has added blocks
such walls in other cities and that this actually strengthens the wall.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Watts advised that he has heard
nothing to change his opinion regarding the wall. He noted that the ordinance
is relatively clear, providing that there is to be a six-foot block wall above
the highest grade level between the residential and commercial property. The
developer has one of two ways to go about this, either he obtains permission to
add onto the existing wall from the residential property owners, or he builds
his own six-foot wall.
In reply to Council questions, Mr. Van Dorpe and Mr. Maddox estimated
that a simple block wall or beam guard rail type barrier on Gain Street would
cost between $600 and $2,000.
Mayor Thom commented that it appears from the two petitions submitted that
out of 91 homes in Tract No. 6691, the owners and/or residents of 56 homes
would like to see Gain Street closed; the owners of 28 homes would not, and 7
have so far made no comments.
Councilman Seymour, changin8 these figures to approximate percentages
noted that 61% favor closure, 30.8% oppose and 7.7% are noncommittal. He
indicated that even though he personally is in favor of closing Gain Street,
this does not appear to be a clear consensus of opinion on the part of the
homeowners.
Councilman Sneegas concurred with Councilman Seymour's observation and
added that he would also be concerned about closing off the street when its
improvement was required of the developer just seven years ago. He also noted
that the closure of Gain Street would most likely have an impac~ on she
adjoining commercial property and would be concerned about any liability the
City might incur as a result of this abandonment. He also noted that the City
by just barricading and not removing curbs, gutters, etc., would have a problem
with cars going into that barricade, especially when it is foggy.
Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that if there is a mistake in the
street design or if conditions have changed to a degree which require
correction, such corrections should be made. He reiterated that he considers
this particular street configuration an unsafe situation, but until such time
as there is a clear consensus of opinion of those homeowners in Tract No. 6691
which favors the closure of Gain Street, he would not vote in favor of the
abandonment. He clarified that by clear consensus he meant 70% to 80% of the
homes in the tract.
Mayor Thom agreed, noting that he would also be inclined to vote favorably
on the abandonment if there were at least 70% to 75% of the property owners in
this 91 home tract in favor. He did not consider those 56 homes as a suffi-
cient majority.
75- 1062
City }{all, Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2.~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRO~NTAL IbfPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, 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. Council
Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-624: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-624 for
adoption, denying Abandonment No. 75-7A.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAI~IM DENYING THE VACATION
AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS GAIN
STREET. (75-7A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ME~ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-624 duly passed and adopted.
.ADJOUrNmeNT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. Council Members Kaywood and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9: 15 P.M.
ALONA M. HOUGARD, CITY CLE~I
By'
.~'~ ~-Y ~. ~ Deputy