Loading...
1967/02/279986 City Hall, AnaheSm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1967~ 1:30 P.M. drilling permit. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 5:10 P.M. City Clerk City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 27~ 1967~ 7:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular session at the Anaheim Central Library. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte and Krein. COUNCILMEN: Chandler. CITY MANAGER: Keith Murdoch. CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona Mo Farrens. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Mickelson. ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson. Mayor Krein called the meeting to order. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Schutte led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PUBLIC HEARING - OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION OIL WELL DRILLING PERMIT: Mayor Krein announced that the City Council meeting of February 21, 1967, was adjourned to this date to consider evidence concerning an appeal filed by residents in the area of a derrick erected under Oil Well Drilling Permit (Application No. 1408), issued by the City of Anaheim to Occidental Petroleum Corporation for property in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Romneya Drive and State College Boulevard, to determine whether said permit was issued in accordance with terms and provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to drilling and production of oil, and whether the provisions of said Code are being properly administered and enforced in connection with the operation on subject property. City Attorney Joseph Geisler read memorandum report of the Development Services Department dated February 8, 1967, noting findings that the drill site is not located within an "oil combining district or zone", and therefore would have to comply with primary site development standards and land use regulations of the Oil Code, which he thereupon briefed for the information of those present; further, that these provisions are being complied with by Occidental Petroleum Corporation, according to periodic inspections of the drill site; however, any specific objections from those opposed should be presented to the City Council at this time. Mayor Krein asked if anyone wished to address the City Council in objection to the drilling operation. Mr. Robert Godwin, 1900 East Rosewood Avenue, advised that the permit was issued to Occidental Petroleum Corporation to erect a 26 foot by 136 foot derrick, and it was his estimate that the derrick was actually constructed to dimensions of approximately 35 feet by 150 feet. He noted the definition of a derrick (Chapter 17.12.020(10)) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and referred to Chapter 18.58o040(1)(i), which requires a solid 8'foot redwood fence or masonry wall to enclose the drill site, advising that guy wires supporting the derrick as well as other supports, are extended to the exterior of the fence; that said fence was erected to a height of 9 feet, and was not constructed of the required materials. Mr. Godwin submitted three photographs of the drill site, illustrat- ing the guy wires and supports on the exterior of the fence, noting that children have been observed using these supports for access to the equipment and derrick area. He submitted eight additional photographs of the site, 9987 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 27~ 1967~ 7:00 PoM. five of which illustrated trucks parked in the right~-of-way on the north side of Romneya Drive, blocking west-bound traffic~ Certain oil drilling permit requirements of the City of Redondo Beach were noted by Mr. Godwin, who was of the opinion that the City of Anaheim should require more rigid safety precautions for the protection of citizens. In Mr. Godwin's opinion, the issuance of a permit to Occidental Petroleum Corporation was not in the best interest of the City, and was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; he thereupon requested permission to present his argument with regard to the Zoning Ordinance° Councilmen Pebley and Krein expressed an interest in hearing the gentleman's additional comments. Mr. Godwin submitted for Council review an Assessor's Map of the area bounded by the Riverside Freeway and Romneya Drive on the North and South, and State College Boulevard and Baxter Street on the East and West, advising that owners of thirty-five properties marked in red on said map were opposed to the drilling for oil in close proximity to their homes. Mr. Godwin was of the opinion that Chapter 17.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Oil Drilling Permits), in effect, permits administrative changes of zone, with citizens being denied the right of protest; that said chapter is in conflict with most of the Anaheim Zoning Ordinance, with no provision designating which ordinance takes precedence. He noted the R-A zoning of the irregularly shaped property in question, and read from Chapter 18.16.010, denoting description and purpose of the R-A Zone, together with uses permitted by right, and by conditional use permit within said zone. He called attention to the fact that no provision for oil production is contained in either list of uses for R-A zoned property. Other sections of the Municipal Code were noted by Mr. Godwin, and in his opinion, oil wells are not compatible with residential areas, particularly where there are 155 residences within a distance of 660 feet. He advised that in filing their petition of appeal from the granting of subject drilling permit, the opponents were complying with provisions of Chapter 18.16.050- Appeals~ In conclusion, Mr. Godwin noted that Chapter 18.04.140 of the Code provides that no use permit shall be used where it would be in conflict with provisions of Title 18 Zoning, and he was of the opinion that subject oil drilling permit is in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance, and with the City Charter. He thereupon requested that said permit be declared null and void. The City Attorney advised that provisions for oil drilling safety standards, as contained in Title 17 of the Municipal Code, are unrelated to the Zoning Ordinance; and he read from Chapter 18.58.030 (1) of the Oil Production Code, as follows: "(1) The use of any land which has not been approved as an oil production combining zone shall be permitted to be used for the drilling for and production of oil subject to the primary site development standards of this chapter." In answer to Councilman Pebley's question, Mr~ Godwin stated that he did not have a lease with Occidental Petroleum Corporation, however he did have possession of the mineral rights; that he had been concerned about the vacant property in question, and when he was approached by a representa- tive of the petroleum corporation, he was advised it was their intent to employ slant drilling techniques, and to drill from another area. Mr. Signond Dembowski, 1706 Briarvale Avenue, addressed the Council concurring with statements made by Mr. Godwin, and referred to the photo- graphs submitted illustrating the trucks blocking the west-bound traffic on Romneya Drive, calling attention to the fact that no flagman was provided to direct traffic around said trucks. 9988 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California o COUNCIL MINUTES - February 27~ 1967~ 7:00 P.M. Mr. Dembowski was of the opinion that if it were necessary for him to sell his home today, he would undoubtedly take a considerable loss because of the existing oil derrick. He requested clarification as to whether the Development Services Department has the total right to determine locations for oil well drilling. Mr. Geisler replied in the negative, and briefed existing Code provisions for rules and regulations under which oil drilling sites may be established, and oil pumping operations maintained. He called attention to primary site development standards, calling for limitation of deliveries or removal of equipment or material, and drill pipe storage to the hours between 7:00 AoM. and 7:00 P.M. Discussion was held regarding the traffic at the drill site, and it was noted that any traffic congestion caused by truck deliveries of rigging equipment, pipe, etc., was a temporary situation, and will occur again only when dismantling of the equipment and the derrick takes place. Mrs. Marion E. Godwin, 1900 East Rosewood Avenue, asked whether a similar drilling operation could be established near Disneyland, provided the proper regulations were followed; the City Attorney's response being in the affirmative, she asked what recourse was available to the City in the event the oil company did not adhere to the Code provisions. Mr. Geisler advised that in that event, the City would be in position to file legal proceedings against the company, and would indeed do so if it became necessary. Mayor Krein asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council with reference to the oil drilling permit. Mr. Henry Hoag, 15061 Westminster Avenue, Westminster, advised that he was the owner of property at 1903 East Romneya Drive, across the street from the area in question, and at the present time he was interested in developing his property for a convalescent hospital. He had no objection to the oil drilling, but inquired whether the location of the operation would have any bearing on his future plans to apply for proper zoning actions to permit his proposed development. Mr. Hoag was advised that if his property was located the proper distance from the well site, as provided in the Municipal Code, there should be no problem caused by the well. Mr. Hoag stated that if there was any further truck parking difficulty at the site, he would allow them to park on his property at no expense. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council in opposition to the oil drilling permit. Mr. Lew Herbst, 1036 Liberty Lane, briefly addressed the Council expressing the opinion that many of the people who signed leases with Occidental Petroleum Corporation did so with the understanding that the drilling would be done from a location some distance removed. He stated that he had no opposition to the well, but had been unable to obtain information as to exactly where the drilling would take place. In his opinion, the people should be entitled to know these things, and a public hearing should be required before this type of operation is allowed in close proximity to single family homes. Mayor Krein reported that a petition in favor of the drilling permit had been submitted to the City Clerk this date, containing approxi- mately 450 signatures, and he asked for a show of hands by those in favor and those in opposition; the greater majority of persons present indicating approval of said permit. In answer to Councilman Pebley's questions, the City Attorney advised that the height of the derrick was not required to be 135 feet by Code, but may have been designated as such on the application for the permit, 9989 City Hall~ Anaheim? California COUNCIL MINUTES - February 27~ 1967~ 7:00 P.M. and specifications would have been checked through the Building Division; however, as to fence construction in excess of the required 8 feet, it was his interpretation that the additional foot was added as a protective measure, and he noted that the 8 feet was a minimum requirement. For clarification, Mr. Geisler reported that if the well produces oil, the property could be designated an oil producing zone only through a zoning action with public hearings before the City Planning Commission and the City Council; and the property would remain under the primary minimum site development standards until such time as the Oil Zone were established. Mr. Ronald Thompson reported that the Development Services Department had a letter on file from Occidental Petroleum Corporation, stating that the existing fence was temporary, and if oil production takes place, a permanent fence and landscaping would be installed. In response to questions of the Council, Mr. R. W. Bruce, Manager of the Land Department, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, advised that the guy wires and supports on the drill site are required by safety laws and by State Fire laws to be located a certain number of feet from the base of the tower. That the existing fence is temporary, as reported by Mr. Thompson, and within 90 days they expect to determine whether the well will produce oil. Regarding the truck parked on the street, Mr. Bruce advised that when the appeal to the drilling permit was filed, rigging trucks had been previously called to the site, and upon arriving there, the drivers were instructed not to unload, due to the Council action scheduling this hearing, which precluded any further work at the site, pending the outcome thereof. In answer to inquiries from the audience, Mr. Bruce advised that no Nitroglycerin or reflection charges would be exploded in the well; that their company has had no complaints of vibration from drilling operations causing damage to swimming pool foundations; that they use both internal combustion engines and electrical pumps in their operations, subject to advise from their engineering people. Mayor Krein declared the hearing closed. On the recommendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Dutton moved that the Development Services Department be directed to check those items which were mentioned at this public hearing as possibly being in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and to require that necessary corrections be made; that the City Council permit the temporary fence to remain on the site for a period not to exceed 90 days, and if the well produces oil, a permanent fence shall be erected, subject to approval by the Development Services Department and the City Council; further, that it be the finding of the City Council that nothing has been presented to the Council at this public hearing which would justify the revocation of the oil drilling permit. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilman Pebley moved for a five minute recess. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Krein called the meeting to order, all members of the City Council being present with the exception of Councilman Chandler. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 53-54-9 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 878: The City Attorney briefly reported on the history of Reclassification No. 53-54-9, and advised that Ordinance No. 878 reclassified properties located on the west side of East Street, extending from Water Street to South Street, to M-1 and P-L zoning, limiting vehicular access thereto from East Street to one access only, with a peripheral road. He noted subsequent litigation relative to subject property, and advised that specifications for the south East Street widening project were prepared showing two drive way access ways replacing the one existing, which was 9990 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 27~ 1967, 7:00 P.Mo not in conformity with the action of the City Council, and E. D. Johnson and Company now request an amendment to the ordinance to permit the two drive ways, which would facilitate their truck traffic ingress and egress. On the recommendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Pebley moved that the City Clerk be instructed to schedule public hearing before the City Council March 14, 1967, 7:00 PoM. to consider amendment to Ordinance No. 878, subject to the filing of a $50.00 fee to defray advertising costs. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 8:40 P.M. Deputy City Clerk City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28, 1967, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte, Chandler and Krein. COUNCILMEN: None. CITY MANAGER: Keith Murdoch0 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert Davis. CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens. CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G. Orsborn. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Mickelson. ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson. ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Marvin Kriegero TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow. PROCLAMATIONS: Counc i 1: Mayor Krein called the meeting to order. The following proclamations were unanimously ratified by the City "Red Cross Month" - March, 1967. "Arbor Week" - March 5 through 11, 1967. "Clean-up, Fix-up, Paint and Plant Month" - March, 1967. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Meeting held February 7, 1967, were approved on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Schutte. Councilman Dutton abstained from voting on said motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Dutton moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the city in the amount of $521,261.54, in accordance with the 1966-67 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84: Public hearing was held to consider City Planning Commission Re~olution No, PC67-16, recommending that an amendment to the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way, General Plan Amendment No. 84, be disapproved; said amendment would designate