1971/10/1971-627
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
AB SENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCILMEN: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Mnrdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: John Dawson
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
M~yor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Bob Camp, of the West Anaheim Baptist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION: "United States Day," October 23, 1971, was unanimously pro-
claimed by the City Council.
PROCLAMATION - COMMUNITY HEALTH WEEK: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Thom, the City Council concurred with and endorsed
Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 71-1073, pro-
claiming "Con~nunity Health Week," October 18 to 22, and "School
Nurse Day," October 20, 1971. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held October 5, 1971,
were approved on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephen-
son. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom 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 read-
ing of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading
of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the
amount of $2,095,154.82, in accordance with the 1971-72 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1248: Submitted by LaSalle
Company, to permit a motion picture studio and related tourist oriented at-
tractions, and to permit a restaurant and cocktail lounge on property pre-
sently zoned County 100-M-i-20,000, located on the south side of La Palma
Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet west of Kraemer Boulevard, compring approxi-
mately 18 acres, and further requesting the following waivers to the sign
regulations:
a. Maximum height of free-standing sign (57 feet permitted, 83
feet proposed)
b. Maximum sign height (75 feet permitted, 83 feet proposed)
c. Maximum area of multi-faced, free-standing sign (700 square
feet permitted, 4971 square feet proposed)
d. Location of free-standing sign (center 20% required, within
25 feet of easterly property line proposed)
e. Maximum sign area in parking-landscape area (100 square feet
permitted, 4,941 square feet proposed)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-164,
denied said conditional use permit.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed
by the Applicant and public hearing scheduled before the City Council October
12, 1971, and continued to this date for a full Council.
71-628
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Letters received for and against said proposal were placed on file
and copies thereof furnished each Council member.
Mr. Roberts, with aid of section maps posted on the east wall of
the Council Chambers,noted location of subject property and how it related
to others in the area as to zoning and use. Attention was also called to
the recently-adopted Area Development Plan No. 108, designating the develop-
ment plan for future street circulation in the area.
Mr. Roberts reported the Applicant proposes to establish a motion
picture studio and related tourist oriented attractions, including the fol-
lowing:
1. 52,000-square feet, two-story administration building.
2. Sound stage.
3. Sound recording studio.
4. 500-seat theater.
5. 400-seat restaurant and cocktail lounge, atop 40-foot steel
pylons.
6. 100-foot-long pool.
7. 200-foot-long contoured lagoon for surface shooting.
8. Sunken 1,O00-seat amphitheater with rotating quadrant stage.
9. A four-way street intersection with more than one-half mile
of building fronts, each w~th eight additional facades on
steel tracks to drop in place when needed.
10. Gardens and Hall of Film Fame with items of memorabilia from
entertainment stars.
11. All ancillary facilities, such as make-up, wardrobe, props,
carpentry, electrical equipment and storage shops.
12. Fifteen retail shops offering products and services to visi-
tors.
Mr. Roberts reported the City Planning Commission had held exten-
sive hearings on subject application and the conclusion reache~ was denial.
He thereupon read the findings set forth in City Planning Commission Resolu-
tion No. PC71-164, being the basis upon which said Conditional Use Permit
was denied.
In answer to Council questioning regarding parking requirements,
Mr. Roberts reported that the basic use is one not accounted for in the z~n-
lng code and staff noted those uses for which standard and definite require-
ments are established,and based on the square footages~and potential occu-
pancy of the various areas, in excess of 968 spaces would be required and
the Applicant is proposing 332 spaces.
Councilman Roth noted that no variance to the parking requirements
have been requested by the Applicant.
Mr. Roberts advised that perhaps the variance to the parking re-
quirements should have been requested and included.
In answer to questions of Councilman Thom, Mr. Roberts reported
that a motion picture studio was permitted as a matter of right in the M-1
zone and that the Conditional Use Permit was to consider the ancillary uses
and facilities.
Mr. Nichola~ garletta, 105 South Pr0sp~ct, Tustin, California,
Agent for National Sierra Pictures Corporation, read from the code uses
permitted in the M-1 zone, noting the following: Motion picture studios,
laboratories and film processing, photo engraving, photo copying, photo pro-
cessing, blue print and blue printing, radio broadcasting studio or station,
telephone exchange studios and offices and equipment buildings, television
broadcasting studios or stations, training center, industrial, woodworking
shops.
Mr. Barletta also noted uses permitted in the M-1 zone as "acces-
sory uses," such as: Employee cafeteria and coffee shops, exhibition of
products produced on the premises or available for wholesale distribution,
offices, retail distribution of products produced on the premises.
71-629
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Under outdoor uses he noted "parking," and under conditional uses
he noted "restaurants with or without cocktail lounge."
Mr. Barletta advised that a motion picture studio was, in fact, a
factory and as much background material as possible is furnished to meet the
needs of a producer's script. He noted the lagoon as an example which can be
utilized for underwater filming. He stated one-third of the entire adminis-
tration building will be devoted to three sound stages, plus a sound-recording
studio, 500-seat theater for rehearsals and viewing the finished products by
arranging premiere showings to certain groups.
Mr. Barletta stated the primary function of the facility was to
provide the independent producers a facility with as much background material
possible to produce their shows. As to tourist-oriented, he again called
attention to the provisions of the M-1 code, wherein display of wares and
products is permitted.
He explained how they had arrived at the estimated parking spaces
needed, it being based on a complement of fifty or sixty permanent employees,
and even though this is to be a seven-day week offering to the public, in
their opinion, parking is adequate to accorm~odate both visitors and employees.
It was his further opinion the requested use would have less effect on traffic
in the area than if the property developed as classic industrial.
As to the invasion of the M-1 zone, Mr. Barletta felt their request
was not an invasion and if there had been an invasion it had been accomplished
· ~ith the installation of the miniature golf course to the east.
Councilman Stephenson asked if any additional property was available
in the event it was determined 332 parking spaces were insufficient. Mr. Bar-
letta replied in the affirmative, and advised that the majority of the eighteen
acres will be developed into "glorified landscape" and that areas predestined
for landscaping could be utilized for parking, plus the possibility of acquir-
ing additional land.
Councilman Roth asked what percentage of the activities would be
tourist attractions?
Mr. Barletta replied they did not know at what point, but at some
time they estimated the tourist-oriented portion of the business would repre-
sent or average twenty percent and that even the fifteen stores projected
will be motion picture-oriented, such as flowers sold would be ~ose used in
a picture or shoes sold would be those worn by an actor.
Mayor Dutton referred to the statement of the applicant that these
facilities can be used for motion picture production and asked will this be
done?
Mr. Barletta replied, yes, and further advised that the only purpose
for the entire studio is to make motion pictures, anything else would be a
secondary use.
To rephrase his question, Mayor Dutton asked if the motion pictures
made are made only for the benefit of the tourists?
To further explain, Mr. Barletta reported that National Sierra has
exclusive rights to three important scripts. One is the life story of Willie
Pep, former featherweight boxing champion, known as "Will-o'-the-Wisp," and
that the script is ready and will be the first picture shot on this locale.
National Sierra Picture Companies will be making perhaps four or five pictures
yearly itself, as well as offering the facilities to independent producers.
Mr. Barletta, in relating what they hoped to accomplish, listed among
them, first night premieres in the 500-seat theater.
Councilman Thom asked how many facilities with a 500-seat theater,
1,000-seat amphitheater and 400-seat restaurant have the facilities open to
the public?
.City Halle Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Barletta stated that the primary purpose of the amphitheater
was for filming purposes, not staging a show for an audience, however, it
could be used for that. The 500-seat theater would not be opened to the gen-
eral public by itself to view a general-run picture, however, the restaurant
would be open to the general public seven days a week.
Mr. Jerry Steinbaum, President of La Salle Hotel Company, owner of
subject property and the adjacent forty acres to the east, reported that they
were an investment company and not developers and that they have waited eight
years for some kind of development in this area, offering to co-develop the
property or to sell it. He stated that land values in the area have decreased
and in view of the inactivity, felt the City Council should re-evaluate the
amount of land being held for classical M-1 development, as the law of supply
and demand clearly shows there has been no demand. He further stated, they
had an offer for the land for a mobile home use six years ago at a larger
price than what is offered now.
Mrs. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma Avenue, owner of pro-
perty to the west of subject property, addressed the Council in favor of the
request, subject to adequate drainage for the protection of their orange grove.
Mr. Craig Grainger, 125 South Claudina Street, on behalf of Mr.
Frederick Z. Reitler, of Primus Holding Company, owners of approximately
23 acres to the east of subject property, favored said request and felt
the proposed project would provide the area with much-needed stimulation.
Mr. Jerry Picarella, 12032 Haga Street, Garden Grove, Chef in a
nearby restaurant, favored the request, being of the opinion that the in-
creased activity would also benefit their restaurant business. He feared
their business would be forced to close, as of the first of the year, if
conditions did not improve.
sition.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in oppo-
Mr. Gerard F. Warde, 11652 South Walnut, Orange, California, owner
of La Palma Industrial Park, and President Pro Tem of the Northeast Anaheim
Industrial Property Association, addressed the Council, advising that the or-
ganization was just recently formed for the purpose of participating in the
development and maintenance of the industrial integrity of the Northeast In-
dustrial Area. He listed the industries currently represented and stated
that there has not been sufficient time to contact all of the industries in
the area, however, those currently represented by the Association represent
a value in excess of $100,000,000.00, and are industries who want the indus-
trial integrity maintained.
He informed the Council that, in their opinion, 18 acres could logi-
cally develop 9 acres with buildings and would bring both more employment and
greater taxes than the subject proposal. In addition, proposed parking was
totally inadequate, as almost all the amount of spaces projected would be re-
quired for the 400-seat restaurant.
Mr. Warde stated that the City has an obligation to the existing
industries, and because of the standards set up and maintained by the City,
this is the only area in Orange County competive with the Irvine Industrial
Area; that over the last year and one-half there has been in excess of one-
million square feet built in the area. Purther, the area is ideally bu£fered
with the Riverside Freeway, Orange Freeway, Imperial Highway and Orangethorpe
Avenue, and to allow this intrusion would be opening the area to anyone.
Mr. Warde advised that they did not oppose the motion picture stu-
dio, but they did oppose the "tourist attractions;" they do not oppose the
showing of the product if they are buyers of the product, and not tourists.
He also felt, should this become a tourist attraction, a lot of
complaints will be lodged on the noise and odors normally created by an in-
dustrial area.
11-631
City Hall, Anaheim, California.- COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
He called attention to La Palma Avenue as the major four-lane street
through the industrial area, and the utilities installed by the City for the
purpose of bringing in industrial users. He stated that industries will not
come to an area that gives them problems and that is why Irvine Industrial
Area has been so successful, their standards are strict and they are selec-
tive in their industries.
In his opinion, establishing shops and stores could be compared to
Disneyland, where practically anything can be purchased, which, in turn, if
allowed would establish a precedent for a shopping center coming into the
area.
Councilman Thom stated since the theater and amphitheater are to
be used for filming purposes only, as stipulated to by Mr. Barletta, it ap-
peared the only use not allowed by right would be the restaurant and 15 small
shops which are commercial-type uses.
Mr. Warde noted that a restaurant is allowed in an industrial area,
however, the tourist aspects of the proposal would weaken the industrial po-
tential of the area, and recognizing the value of tourist trade he felt it
should logically be located in an area that already has tourist attractions,
and in one presentation it was presented as more tourist-oriented than in-
dustrial, something like 50% or 60%, now it is proposed as 20% tourist-oriented.
Mr. Richard Wilson, Staff Vice-President in charge of Facility Man-
agement of North American Rockwell Corporation, advised that they agree with
the position expressed by Mr. Warde.
Mr. Wilson felt it appropriate to note that they still hold the dis-
tinction of being the largest emp~loyer in Orange County, and that approximately
11,000 employees are within the City of Anaheim. He briefed the history on
the coming of Autonetics to the City of Anaheim, and in noting the reasons
for the current slump, felt it was not a permanent thing and that they had
hopes of a comeback.
Mr. Wilson advised that over the years they have resisted non-indus-
trial encroachment in the area and that a complete study of the area is timely,
and towards this goal, offered to contribute manpower and other resources of
North American to help sponsor said study; to determine whether the area is,
in fact, too large, and in any event to develop a more specific plan for the
area including industrial supporting activities.
In conclusion, Mr. Wilson stated that, in their opinion, the proposed
activity is to some extent a tourist attraction, regardless of the degree, and
therefore, they do oppose the granting of the conditional use permit on the
basis of an encroachment by a non-industrial user.
Mr. Geisler, to clarify the issue before the City Council, reported
that with the exception of the tourist-oriented activity, the restaurant and
cocktail lounge is a permitted use by conditional use permit in the M-1 zone;
that the rezoning of the property was not a matter before the City Council.
Mr. Charles Bradley, representing Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc.,
reported that they favored a con~lete restudy of the permitted uses in the M-1
zone with regard to the northeast industrial area, and until such a study is
undertaken and completed they strongly opposed the issuance of zoning variances
or conditional use permits in the Northeast Industrial Area.
Mr. Ed Klein, Vice-President of Operations of Econolite, reported
that they had recently moved this dfvision to 3360 East La Palma Avenue, and
presently employ 500 Anaheim people. He advised that everything he has heard
today leads him to believe that the proposed activity will be primarily tourist-
oriented. He agreed with statements made by Mr. Warde and Mr. Wilson, in that
it would not be in the best interests of the other users of the industrial pro-
perty in the area to grant the conditional use permit, and in addition, in his
opinion, moving in an industry that presently has 85% unemployment did not seem
to be in the best interest of the City.
71-632
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Sid Maleck, United California Bank Building, 1010 North Main
Street, Santa Ana, Attorney representing the investors in the proposed pro-
ject, expressed his surprise that opposition was voiced by Autonetics and
Econolite. He informed the Council of his former association with these
two firms, prior to entering his own practice. He stated their policy has
always been forward looking and progressive which, in the opinion of the
investors, the proposed project can be classified.
Mr. Maleck stated the movie studio will be beneficial to the people
of Anaheim, the City and the industrial area where it is proposed to be lo-
cated. He again called attention to the fact that employment was down and
that the Orange County area had a higher percentage of unemployment than the
average unemployment throughout the nation.
Mr. Maleck advised that by looking at the plans it can be readily
determined that the studio is to be production-oriented primarily, as well
as a tourist benefit, and from both aspects employment will be created. He
noted the movie industry is a type of business synonomous and traditional
with Southern California, and the chief difference in this case will be in-
stead of based in Hollywood it will be in Anaheim. He stated Anaheim is
rated one of the greatest showplaces in Southern California, having one of
the most formidable attractions in the entire nation - Disneyland, which is
a direct offshoot of the movie industry. He asked why it was not logical to
locate a movie studio here, and where better than in the M-1 zone?
In conclusion, Mr. Maleck advised that the proposed project, if
approved, will only be an initial start and that they intend to have a con-
glomerate with eventual distribution facilities.
In noting the site selected, he called attention to the inactivity
in the area, advising the land lay fallow without benefiting anyone, and
there would be little advantage in not granting the use requested.
Mayor Dutton, noting Mr. Maleck's presentation was not in opposi-
tion, asked if anyone else present wished to address the Council in opposi-
tion. Hearing no response, he again invited Mr. Barletta to address the City
Council.
Mr. Barletta, referring to letters of opposition filed by the Pro-
perty Owners Association, and particularly of the Anaheim Chamber of Con~er~e,
stated he felt that when an organization takes a definite position on an is-
sue, they should first explore all phases of the situation before arriving
at a recommendation. He noted even though he was a member of the Chamber
of Commerce, he had not been invited to explain the proposal to them, or to
the Property Owners Association.
Referring to the Irvine area, he noted the various uses established
there, and as a result, in comparison, failed to see where their proposal
would violate the industrial climate.
Mr. Barletta again advised that the only facility open to the gen-
eral public would be the restaurant; that the only way of getting to the shops
and other areas would be by purchasing a tour ticket.
It being determined sufficient evidence had been given, Mayor Dut-
ton declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Roth expressed his concern relative to the vacant land
in the industrial area, and felt the area should be reevaluated, noting the
dual responsibility of the Council was not only to maintain the industrial
integrity of the area, but to be flexible enough to examine very closely
related compatible uses, particularly fringe areas,to stimulate increased
usage of the amount of land available. He stated the creation of jobs must
be considered over vacant property,and the easing of the tax burden of the
owners, being a situation created by holding to the industrial integrity,
must also be considered.
71-633
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Stephenson advised, after hearing testimony given, in
his opinion, a far greater portion of the use would be that of a movie studio
rather than a tourist attraction, and therefore, it should locate in an M-1
zone, rather than a C-R zone. He failed to see how locating a movie studio
on the fringe area, between the Riverside Freeway and La Palma Avenue, could
damage the integrity of the industrial area.
Councilman Thom asked if a movie studio was permitted, by right, in
the M-1 zone, or via a conditional use permit in the M-1 zone?
Mr. Roberts replied that a motion picture studio was permitted as
a matter of right. The restaurant and tourist-related aspects require a con-
ditional use permit.
Mr. Geisler reported there are no provisions in the Anaheim M~nici-
pal Code pertaining to "tourist-related activities." As to the "tourist", all
industries conduct tours. The only difference in this case is the commercial-
ism that there will be for the fee charged for the tours of this industry.
To further answer Councilman Thom, Mr. Geisler advised the reques-
ted conditional use permit was for permission to sell admission to go through
this particular industrial plant.
Councilman Thom then asked Mr. Barletta if the studio would locate
there without the right to sell tickets to view it.
Mr. Barletta replied "No," and again read the list of permitted uses
in the M-1 zone. He stated, in his opinion, the only activity requiring the
conditional use permit was the restaurant and cocktail lounge, and if the res-
taurant and cocktail bar were disapproved he felt the studio, in all probabil-
ity, would proceed to locate there.
It was determined that the two items to be considered by the City
Council were the restaurant and bar, and the con~nercial capability of selling
tour tickets.
Councilman Stephenson called attention to the fact that the reques-
ted waivers to the sign regulations have not been considered nor discussed,
inasmuch as the requested use was the paramount issue.
Mr. Roberts, regarding the sign, reported it to be a three-face
sign, and appeared to be a part of the structural portion of the building.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-464: At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Ste-
phenson offered Resolution No. 71R-464 for adoption, granting the use reques-
ted under Conditional Use Permit No. 1248, and denying, without prejudice,
all waivers (a, b, c, d, and e,) pertaining to sign regulations, subject to
the following Interdepartmental recommendations:
1. That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim land for street widening and construction and public utility purposes
as follows:
a. 32 feet from centerline of street on the northeast side of White
Star Avenue.
b. The southerly 60 feet of subject property adjacent to the River-
side Freeway.
c. The westerly 63 feet of the easterly 64 feet of subject property
between La Palma Avenue and the Riverside Freeway with the easterly one (1)
foot retained by the owners as Lot "~'.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along
the streets indicated in Condition No. 1, 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 stand-
ard plans and specifications for an industrial collector street on file in the
office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along the streets
71-634
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
indicated in Condition No. 1 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.
3. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along the streets indicated in Condi-
tion No. 1, for tree planting purposes.
4. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities,
shall be installed in the south parkway of the street adjacent to the River-
side Freeway. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and approved
by the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and ac-
ceptance, the City of Anaheim will assume the responsibility for maintenance
of the landscaping.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
6. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That all air conditioning facilities and mechanical equipment
shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties.
9. That a parcel map to record the approved division of subject
property be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be re-
corded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
10. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a man-
ner satisfactory to the C~y Engineer.
11. That the final parking plan shall be approved by the Development
Services Department, and any landscaped areas in th~ parking area shall be pro-
tected with 6-inch high, concrete curbs, and concrete wheel stops shall be pro-
vided for parking spaces as required by the Development Services Department.
12. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 9, above mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within
a period of 180 days from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further
time as the City Council may grant.
13. That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, above mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accord-
ance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ex-
hibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
15. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the com-
pletion of Reclassification No. 70-71-47, now pending.
16. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to comple-
tion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
Refer to Resolution.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1248, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES; COUNGILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Febley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-464 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved for a 10-minute Recess. Councilman Pebley seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:05 P.M.).
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all members being present,
and the business before the Council resumed.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-1: Submitted by Virginia Hilts and Cora
Ro~s, requesting change of zone from R-A to C-1 on property located at the south-
east corner of Orangewood Avenue and Mountain View Avenue, to establish a small
convenience comercial center.
71-635
.City Hal!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19~ 1971, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-184,
recormnended said reclassification be denied.
Mr. Roberts noted the location of subject property and the zoning
and use of adjacent and surrounding properties. He briefed the reasons for
denial by the City Planning Conm~ission.
Mr. Harry Knisely, Attorney for the Applicants, advised in research-
ing the file it appeared the reclassification was denied on the basis of spot
zoning and apparent lack of need, and according to the statement made by the
maker of the motion, prior to the action taken, it was felt the requested u~se
would be better for the adjacent property owners than for the residential.
However, it was denied on the basis of spot zoning.
With reference to spot zoning, Mr. Knisely noted from Supreme Court
decisions that spot zoning may be in the public interest and may also be in
accordance with a Master Plan, and as an example used the policy of the muni-
cipality permitting locating neighborhood grocery stores in a strictly resi-
dential area as a convenience to the neighborhood.
Mr. Knisely thereupon submitted copies of the petition filed with
the City Planning Commission, containing 24 signatures of owners and/or resi-
dents requesting the C-1 zoning be approved, together with a map of the area
indicating the location of those properties represented by the signers of the
petition.
Mr. Knisely was of the opinion the proposed project is needed, com-
patible, and a real convenience to the people in the area.
Mr. Cas Jancinski, 338 East Orangewood Avenue, owner of adjacent
property east of subject property, addressed the Council favoring the request,
and advised he has seen the Applicants' other stores and found them to be well
maintained. He stated there is a need for a store at this location and it would
be a great service to them all.
Mr. Leroy Williams, 2124 Mountain View Avenue, owner of adjacent pro-
perty south of subject property, also addressed the Council, approving the re-
quest and advised that the few people opposed to the shopping center live fur-
ther away and are not faced with the conditions of subject property as they
presently exist.
Mr. Gene Johnson, 515 Flint, Long Beach, representing Van der Steen
Enterprises, owners of the 11 parcels on Mountain View Avenue which are devel-
oped into duplex and triplex apartments, addressed the Council in support of
the Application, and advised that the present condition of subject property
is a detriment in the renting of their units. He further advised that, in
his opinion, the development of a good, well-kept convenience center will in-
crease the value of the adjoining properties.
Mr. Joven Lim, 2130 Mountain View Avenue, also favored the requested
reclassification.
Plans of development were reviewed by the City Council,and Mr. Knisely
stipulated to the locating of the proposed laundromat contiguous to the grocery
store which will be on the northerly extremity of the development.
Mr. Tom Voorhis, 323 East Bluebell Place, addressed the Council in
opposition, calling attention to the fact that their tract is nearly all single
units or low-density, and has no access to Orangewood Avenue.
Mr. Voorhis stated he did not doubt the beauty of the plan or the ef-
forts of the developer to construct a nice development, however, he could not
understand why this particular lot ~ust be improved by the construction of a
store in order to eliminate an eyesore. He noted the location of five markets
within 7/10ths of a mile from subject property, with Orangewood Avenue remain-
ing basically residential. He also noted residential areas adjacent to com-
mercial developments rapidly deteriorate, lessening property values. In his
opinion, this was intrusion, and he expressed concern regarding lights at
71-636
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
night and future development that will affect the value of his property and
the type of life he is able to live in his home.
Mayor Dutton, noting the location of Mr. Voorhis' property, failed
to see how he could be damaged by the proposed use.
Mr. Voorhis replied that his concern is to the proposed sale of
beer and wine, traffic, and possible trash and debris that will be scattered
in the area. He stated that a renter can leave an area when it deteriorates,
but it was not that easy for a homeowner.
Mrs. Iaquinta, 2123 Vern Street, owner of property directly east
of and adjacent to subject property, agreed with statements made by Mr. Voor-
his, and advised that she purchased the property because it was in a resi-
dential area and a cul-de-sac street. She feared her property would be the
short-cut to the convenience center and objected to the noise that would
emanate.
Barbara Wohlt, 334 Bluebell Place, addressed the Council in oppo-
sition, being of the opinion the proposed project would establish a prece-
dent for the undeveloped parcel of property adjacent to their home.
Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, noted no traffic to the R-1 area would
be generated, and that lights would be controlled by the conditions that
would be imposed. He stated the population to support the store is there,
and it is obvious that the people in the area want it.
It being determined sufficient evidence had been given, Mayor Dut-
ton declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-465: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-465 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of necessary ordinance changing the
zone as requested, subject to the following conditions, as recommended by
the Interdepartmental Committee, plus a further condition that the proposed
laundromat will be contiguous to the grocery store, to be located at the
northerly extremity of the development, as stipulated:
1. That street lighting facilities along Mountain View and Orange-
wood Avenues shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utili-
ties 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 requirement.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Mountain View and Orangewood Ave-
nues 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 as required and deter-
mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
5. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east
and south property lines.
6. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent residential development.
7. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be down-lighting
of a maximum he£§ht of 6 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from
the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That the final parking plan shall be approved by the Develop-
ment Services Department, and any landscaped areas in the parking area shall
be protected with 6-inch high concrete curbs, and concrete wheel stops shall
be provided for parking spaces as required by the Development Services De-
partment.
10. That subject property shall be developed substmmtially in ac-
cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. (Revision No. 1).
71-637
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October !9, !971, 1:30 P.M.
11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro-
perty, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be completed. The pro-
visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within
180 days from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may
grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, above mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(71-72-1 - C-I)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
Stephenson
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-465 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-14 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 60-61-42):
Submitted on behalf of the John M. Schlund, et al property, requesting a
change of zone from R-A to C-R; property located at the northeast corner
of West Street and Orangewood Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-159,
recommended denial of said reclassification.
Communication dated September 22, 1971, from Frank L. Schmehr, Agent
for the Applicants, requesting, in accordance with Court order, withdrawal
and no further action on Reclassification No. 71-72-14, and also no further
action on the reinstatement of Reclassification No. 60-61-42, was submitted
and granted, as requested, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Council-
man Roth. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-15: Submitted by Robert H. Grant Cor-
poration, Anaheim Hills, Incorporated, requesting a change of zone from City
R-A and County Al, to City R~H-10,000; property briefly described as located
south and east of the intersection of Royal Oak Road and Nohl Ranch Road,
comprising approximately 125 acres, (Anaheim Hills No. 3 Annexation).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-190,
recommended said reclassification, subject to the following conditions:
1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to
the completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
2. 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.
3. That prior to the approval of a final tract map, the owner(s)
of subject property shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate an easement
for riding and hiking trail purposes over that portion of subject property
over w~hich the Four Corners Pipe Line Con, any has an easement for pipe line
and incidental purposes on the date of this resolution. Said offer to dedi-
cate shall be irrevocable for a period of 20 years and may be accepted by
the City of Anaheim at such time as it is determined that development of such
facilities would be in the best interest of the City of Anaheim. Said irre-
vocable offer to dedicate shall include consent of the Four Corners Pipe Line
Company for such easement. Said irrevocable offer to dedicate shall be re-
corded concurrently with the final tract map.
4. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro-
perty, Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void
by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within
one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may
grant.
71-638
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Roberts briefly reviewed subject request, reporting that the
approximately 125 acres is proposed for subdivision into a total of 326 lots
in four separate subdivisions; that the reclassification is in conformance
with the General Plan, and has been recommended by the City Planning Commis-
sion.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant was present and satisfied with
the recommendations of the City Planning Commission, to which he received
an affirmative answer.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposi-
tion; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-466: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 71R-466
for adoption, authorizing the preparation of necessary ordinance changing the
zone as requested, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Com-
mission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMIN-
ING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM ~JNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE
AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (71-72-
15 - R-H-iO,O00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-466 duly passed and adopted.
TENTATIVE TRACTS NOS. 7566, 7567, 7568 AND 7569: Developer - R.H. Grant Corpora-
tion. Property is that covered by Reclassification No. 71-72-15, and briefly
described as located south and east of the intersection of Royal Oak Road
and Nohl Ranch Road, and contains:
a. Tract No. 7566 - 85 proposed R-H-IO,O00 zoned lots.
b. Tract No. 7567 - 60 proposed R~H-10,000 zoned lots.
c. Tract No. 7568 - 98 proposed R-H-10,O00 zoned lots.
d. Tract No. 7569 - 83 proposed R-R-lO,000 zoned lots.
Tract No. 7566: The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Map of Tract
No. 7566, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7566 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-15.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. 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.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Coun-
cil approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants,
conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final
tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of.a final tract map.
7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
71-639
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a man-
ner satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include transporting the
runoff originating both above and within the tract by an approved method to
a satisfactory point of disposal.
9. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road shall be dedicated to the City
of Anaheim.
10. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry
wall (or an alternative approved by the Development Services Department) shall
be constructed in the south portion of Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 23 through 30,
adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road, and in the west portion of Lot Nos. 4, 5, and 6,
adjacent to Royal Oak Road, and in the north portion of Lot Nos. 31 through
34 and 83 through 85, adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road. Subject wall shall be mea-
sured from the highest finished grade level of subject property or the adja-
cent roadways, whichever is highest. Reasonable landscaping, including irri-
gation facilities, shall be installed within the slope areas of each lot adja-
cent to the roadways and in the street parkways and the Four Corners Pipe Line
Easement. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the
approval of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent. Following installation
and acceptance, the property owners shall assume responsibility for mainten-
ance of said landscaping to the lot lines, regardless of the location of the
masonry walls. The City of Anaheim shall assume responsibility for mainten-
ance of landscaping in the Nohl Ranch and Royal Oak Roads rights-of-way.
Tract No. 7567: The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Map of Tract
No. 7567, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No.7567 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-15.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. 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.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Coun-
cil approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved coven-
ants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the
final tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim
prior to approval of a final tract map.
7. That the owners 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.
8. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include transporting the run-
off originating both above and within the tract by an approved method to a
satisfactory point of disposal.
Tract No. 7568: The City Planning Con~nission approved Tentative Map of Tract
No. 7568, subject to the following conditions:
1. That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7568 is granted sub-
ject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-15, now pending.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereo~ shall be submitted in tentative £orm £or
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. 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.
71-640
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City
Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved
covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with
the final tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim
prior to approval of a final tract map.
7. That the owners 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 build-
ing permit is issued.
8. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a man-
ner satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include transporting the
runoff originating both above and within the tract by an approved method to
a satisfactory point of disposal.
9. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Nohl Ranch Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
10. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry
wall (or an alternative approved by the Development Services Department) shall
be constructed in the north portion of Lot Nos. 1 through 7, 69, 70, 72, 73,
95, 96, and 98, adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road. Subject wall shall be measured
from the highest finished grade level of subject property or adjacent road-
way, whichever is highest. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation fa-
cilities, shall be installed within the slope areas of each lot adjacent to
Nohl Ranch Road and in the street parkways. Plans for said landscaping shall
be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Parkway Maintenance Super-
intendent. Following installation and acceptance, the property owners shall
assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping to the lot lines,
regardless of the location of the masonry walls. The City of Anaheim shall
assume responsibility for maintenance of landscaping in the Nohl Ranch Road
right-of-way.
Tract No. 7569: The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Map of Tract
No. 7569, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7569 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-15.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots w~thin this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. 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.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Coun-
cil approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved coven-
ants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the
final tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the build-
ing permit is issued.
8. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a man-
ner satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include transporting the
runoff originating both above and within the tract by an approved method to
a satisfactory point of disposal.
9. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Nohl Ranch Road shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
10. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry
wall (or an alternative approved by the Development Services Department) shall
be constructed in the south portion of Lot Nos. 1 through 11, 47, 58, 82, and
83 adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road. Subject wall shall be measured from the
highest finished grade level of subject property or adjacent roadway, which-
ever is highest. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities,
71-641
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October, 19, 1971, 1:30 P,M,
shall be installed in the slope areas of each lot adjacent to Nohl Ranch
Road, and in the street parkways and in the Four Corners Pipeline Easement.
Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval
of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent. Following installation and accept-
ance, the property owners shall assume responsibility for maintenance of said
landscaping to the lot lines regardless of the location of the masonry walls.
The City of Anaheim shall assume responsibility for maintenance of landscap-
ing in the Nohl Ranch Road right-of-way.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Stephe~son,
Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 7566, 7567, 7568, and 7569 were approved, as recom-
mended by the City Planning Commission, and further subject to an additional
condition to apply to all four tracts, reading as follows:
"The City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assump-
tion of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes."
MOTION CARRIED.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application submitted by John C. Armstrong, Robert Norman
and Art Gonzales for entertainment permit at the Pitcher House, 2880 East
Miraloma Avenue, to allow "go-go" dancing to juke box, noon to midnight,
Monday through Saturday, was submitted together with Chief of Police recom-
mendations that said permit be granted, subject to the provisions of Chapter
4.18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Entertainment permit was granted, as recon~nended by the Chief of
Police, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth. MOTION
CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES.: Application submitted by John C. Armstrong, Robert Norman and
Art Gonzales for 4 Pool Tables for the Pitcher House, 2880 East Miraloma Ave-
nue, was submitted together with Chief of Police ~eeo~nendations that said
permit be granted, subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.24 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Amusement device permit was granted, as recommended by the Chief
of Police, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth.
MOTION CARRIED.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application submitted by Doyle F. Munyon and John R. Gard-
ner, for entertainment permit at Franky and Johnny's, 1029-1031 North Mag-
nolia Avenue, to allow organ and guitar music, 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., nightly,
was submitted together with Chief of Police recommendations that said permit
be granted, subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code.
Entertainment permit was granted, as reco~a~ended by the Chief of
Police, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth. MOTION
CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-30 AND VARIANCE NO, 2231 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request
of Richard E. Smith, Thomson Realty, for an extension of time to Reclassi-
fication and variance for the development of a 67-unit apartment complex on
property located on the south side of Orange Avenue, east of Knott Avenue,
was submitted together with recommendations of the DevelOpment Services De-
partment that a 6-month extension, to expire March 2, 1972, be granted.
Extension of time was granted to Reclassification No. 70-71-30
and Variance No. 2231, as recommended by the Development Services Department,
on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded By Councilman PeBley. MOTION CARR%gD.
CLAIM AGAIi~ST THE CITY: Mrs. John W. Bennie, 207 East North Street, addressed
the Council concerning claim for damages to her lawn previously submitted
and denied by the City Council, June 15, 1971.
Mrs. Bennie advised that, in her opinion, the City was responsible
for killing her dichondra lawn in the parkway area fronting her home, when
71-642
City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M
the Parkway Maintenance crew sprayed the sycamore trees. She advised that
all the lawns in the parkways of the 200 block were destroyed.
Mrs. Bennie thereupon read the letter she had written August 30,
1971, acknowledging receipt of the City Clerk's letter advising of the de-
nial of the claim, and requesting a hearing before the City Council.
Mrs. Bennie stated she would not have pursued the issue if her pro-
perty had been the only one damaged, but this was not the case - also dam-
aged was the property of Mrs. Robert Speake, 211 East North Street.
Mayor Dutton referred to and briefed reports previously received
concerning this incident.
Mr. John Dawson, Assistant City Attorney, referred to their inves-
tigation and report on this matter, noting the claim was also denied by the
City's insurance carrier, and advised that since this claim has previously
been before the City Council and denied, and since the City Council has al-
ready exercised its discretion when denying the claim, it is not in a posi-
tion to reverse that decision as it has exhausted jurisdiction.
Mr. Ronald Woll, Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, reviewed
report on the initial investigation made on the matter and presented pic-
tures of the dead parkway area showing that the lawn in question was the
only lawn dead and was destroyed in a straight line between the two adja-
cent properties.
Mr. Woll reaffirmed his former report in that the lawn, in his opin-
ion, was destroyed by an overdose of Pax, which c~,~nonly occurs when a lawn
is not adequately soaked before applying. He further reported, from work
records of that day, that over 150 trees were sprayed from the same tank of
spray and the only damage reported was that reported by Mrs. Bennie.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1273: Coum~nication from James C. Stanley, of Koll
Income Properties, was submitted and read, requesting a temporary conditional
use permit be granted, pending hearing and action on Conditional Use Permit
No. 1273, filed on behalf of Neophrom, Inc., for a dialysis center to be lo-
cated in the Koll Business Center, 2051 East Cerritos Avenue, Suite 8-A and
8-B, for hemo-dialysis and training in the use of dialysis equipment in the
home.
Also submitted were reports from the City Engineer and Development
Services Department. The Development Services Department reported that said
conditional use permit was scheduled to be heard by the City Planning Commis-
sion on November 1, 1971.
The possibility of both the City Planning Commission and the City
Council denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1273 was considered, and under
these circumstances, if the temporary use is permitted, Mr. Dawson suggested
it mst be at the complete risk of the Applicant, and they must save the
City completely harmless from any costs that might possibly arise in connec-
tion therewith.
Mr. John Allen, Sales Manager for Coldwell, Banker and Company,
advised that the requested use is a permitted use under a conditional use
permit. He thereupon introduced Dr. Lewin, operator of the proposed facil-
ity, to further explain the problem and the reason for the request.
Dr. Laurence Lewin, 12852 Palm Street, Garden Grove, Chief of the
Department of Medicine and Head of the hemo-dialysis at the Palm Harbor Hos-
pital in Garden Grove, advised that because of the tremendous cost to the
patient for this treatment, which averages $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 yearly,
he is making an effort to lower the cost of care. He advised that the chief
problem in the hemo-dialysis care is the overhead costs that exist within
the hospital setting, and if they can get a patient in home dialysis the
cost can be cut to approximately $18,000.00 the first year, and $3,000.00
71-643
C~ty Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971~ 1:30 P.M
after the first year. To reduce this expense to the patient, he wishes to
establish extended care in the lowest cost possible environment. He further
reported he considered commercial sites and industrial sites and after six
months in searching throughout the County found subject location that meets
his needs.
Dr. Lewin explained the tremendous use and demand for this treat-
ment at the Palm Harbor Hospital where they are presently on a double-shift
basis, and that he did not have the capacity to lower the price at the Hos-
pital, but he will have the capacity to cut the cost approximately $40.00 or
$50.00 per treatment, which means a saving of $600.00 a month to the patient.
Dr. Lewin reported that, not knowing a permit would be required, he
has formed a corporation to finance the project and has ordered the necessary
equipment with the first dialysis scheduled December 6th, and that this is
the urgency and the reason for the request. He further stated they would be
willing to take the risk completely and comply fully in relieving the City of
any legal obligations.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
temporary use was granted as requested at their own risk and further subject
to the filing of a Save Harmless Agreement, approved by the City Attorney.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 7288: Developer - CalProp Corporation. Tract located on the
west side of Imperial Highway, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and contains
11.857 acres, divided into 97 proposed R-2 zoned lots, (Reclassification No.
70-71-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1202).
The City Engineer reported that final map conforms substantially
with the tentative map previously approved, bonds have been posted and re-
quired fees paid, and recommended approval thereof.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, Final
Map of Tract No. 7288 was approved, as recommended by the City Engineer.
MOTION CARRIED.
~CLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70-58(1) - WAIVER OF BOND REQUIREMENT: Request of Mr.
Drayton to waive the requirement that a bond be posted for the improvement
of a future street was submitted.
Mr. Dawson reported, as part of the reclassification, the Drayton
Corporation dedicated a 60-foot street at the lower end of their property,
to connect with the extension of a street from La Palma Avenue south,at some
future da~ when the adjacent property develops.
Discussion was held, and at the conclusion thereof, on motic~ by
Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth, waiver of bond require-
ment was approved, subject to the filing of an agreement approved by the City
Attorney, agreeing to install the street and pay for all improvements at such
time as the other street connects with it, said agreement to be recorded in
the office of the Orange County Recorder, and be binding on the corporation,
its successors and assigns. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-9 - WALL REQUIREMENTS: The City Clerk presented, for
further instructions from the City Gouncil~ a request for an evenin$ meeting
concerning the Larwin Construction Company's development of an apartment com-
plex, north of Chalet Avenue and east of Brookhurst Street, and a request
that th~ Larwin Construction Company h~ raqulr~d to eon~truet th~ wall~ or
fences the same heightas the carport walls the full length of the apartment
complex, in order to afford privacy for the residences on Chalet Avenue.
Reports from the City Engineer and Development Services Department,
required prior to scheduling on an Agenda, were also submitted inasmuch as
subject construction meets Code requirements.
Mr. Roberts reported that Larwin has placed carports along a portion
of their southerly boundary, and in so doing, created a 10-foot high masonry
71- 644
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P,M
wall, being the rear of the carports, and as he understood the request,it is
for a 10-foot high wall along the entire boundary. He further reported that
the R-3 zone requires a 6-foot wall to separate R-3 and any Single-Family
Residential Zone, to which the Larwin Company is complying.
It was determined that the issue not be scheduled on the Agenda,
and that the City Attorney's office advise the petitioners that the devel-
opers are complying with code requirements, and the Council is without au-
thority to require other than what the code provisions provide.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-11 AND VARIANCE NO. 2287: The City Clerk reported, with
reference to Reclassification No. 71-72-11 (Peltzer property, proposed C-1
and R-3 zoning),which was continued to November 2, 1971, to readvertise the
hearing to consider R-3 zoning over the entire parcel, subject to the payment
by the Applicant of the $50.00 fee, that the required fee has not been re-
ceived in time to readvertise for the November 2nd date, and as a result, if
the fee is received, it appears the public hearing will require further con-
tinuance from November 2nd, so that the requirement to readvertise can be
complied with.
Mr. Roberts reported that just this afternoon Mr. Thompson, Agent
for the Petitioner, has been contacted and has advised that they still have
not made a decision on whether to proceed or not, and that they would make
this decision within another week.
RESOLUTION NO 71R-467 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No.
71R-467 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Wayne D. and Ruth V. Hansen; Harry
V. and Margery A. Sucher)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-467 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-468 - PROPOSED ABANDONMENT; Councilman Roth offered Resolution
No. 71R-468 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTEN-
TION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON.
(Public Hearing - November 9, 1971, 1:30 P.M. Abandonment No. 71-6A - Alley
north of Cypress Street, between Lemon Street and Anaheim ~oulevard.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-468 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE - EMULSION UNIT: Mr. Murdoch reported on 1970 bids received for the pur-
chase of an Emulsion Unit, and recommended purchase of Asphalt Emulsion Unit
to carry out the street program previously authorized under the PEP Program,
be authorized from Gar Wood, in the amount of $7,277.13, including sales tax.
Purchase was authorized as recommended by the City Manager, on mo-
tion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth. MOTION CARRIED.
71- 645
Hal!, .Anaheim, Galifornta -COUNCIL MINUTES - OctobeF 19,.1971, 1:30 .~..~.
PURCHASE - BRUSH CHIPPER: Mr. Murdoch reported on the following bids received
for the purchase of one Brush Chipper for the previously-authorized street
program, under the PEP Program, and recommended acceptance of the Iow bid:
VENDOR
TOTAL ~. iNCLUDING TAX
Asplundh Equipment, Azusa ............. $4,133.85
Dearth Machinery Company, Baldwin Park - 4,517.10
Kemp-Yorke Equipment, Irwindale ........... 6,247.50
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth,
purchase was authorized from Asplundh Equipment, in .the amount of $4,133.85,
including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE - POWER STUMP CUTTER; Mr. Mardoch reported on the following bids received
for the purchase of one Power Stump Cutter for the previously-authorized street
program, under the PEP Program, and recon~ended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR
%OTAL .AMOUr., INCLUDING TAX
Dearth Machinery, Baldwin Park -$6,416.55
Westpoint Industries, Long Beach .......... 7,571.51
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth,
purchase was authorized from Dearth Machinery, in the amount of $6,416.55,
including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims against the City were denied, as
recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred' t° the insurance car-
rier, on moti~ by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom:
a. James A. McCarty, for purported damage to automobile, June
12, 1971, as it was being towed away by Anaheim Towing Company, under the
direction of the Anaheim Police Department.
b. Century Data Systems, Inc., D.M. Cairns, Vice-President, for
purported personal property damage, August 18, 1971, to building,caused by
power short damaging transformer of claimant's power panel, causing a fire
and activitating the building's sprinkler system.
c. Jerry King, on behalf of daughter, Crystal Lyn King, for pur-
ported personal injuries sustained September 25, 1971, when daughter cut her
leg on picnic table locatedin Hansen Park.
d. S.L. Schuster, Owner/Operator of McDonald's, 119 West Ball
Road, for purported property damage, September 28, 1971, to all three-phase
motors, as result of improper electrical connection of new wiring to restaur-
ant by the City Electrical Crews.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO,. 71R-469: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 71R-469
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Ai~IM AUTHORIZING THE
SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST TO THE FUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR FUNDS FROM
THE CROSSING PROTECTION FUND FOR PROTECTION OF CROSSING NO. BAAS10.3 AT
THE INTERSECTION OF SOLrI~RN PACIFIC TR~SPORTATION ¢O~PANY TRACK AT
CERRITOS AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: C OUNC ILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-469 duly passed and adopted.
71-646
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-470: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No 71R-470 for adop-
tion. ·
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THAT CERTAIN UTILITIES
AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-4325 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (ON ROUTE 57 FREEWAY,
07-0ra-57 12.6/15.6, BETWEEN KATELLA AVENUE AND ROUTE 91).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-470 duly passed and adopted.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth:
Fire Department - Operating Report for the month of September,
1971.
Before the Civil Aeronautics Board - Joint application of Gol-
den West Airlines, Inc., and Los Angeles Airways, Inc., for
exemption under Section 416(b) of the Federal Aviation Act.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 2970:
ing.
Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 2970 for final read-
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLe: 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-13(3) and (4) - R-1 - Tracts
7284 and 4427)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2970 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2971: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 2971 for adop-
tion.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(1) - M-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COIrNC ILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2971 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2972: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 2972 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE .CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(46) - M-i)
71-647
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2972 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2973: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 2973 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(49) - C-R)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2973 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2974: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 2974 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(45) - M-I)
ROOM OCCUPANCY TAX - TRAVEL TRAILER SPACES: Recommendation of the City Planning
Commission to consider levying the 6% Occupancy Tax on travel trailer spaces,
as well as motels and hotels presently assessed, was continued from the meet-
ing of October 5, 1971, for a full Councill
Mr. Murdoch reported that a detailed analysis of the proposal has
not been made, however, they do have an approximation,and the concept or idea
appears to be a good one, however, the indications are that the amount of re-
venue to be obtained appears marginal compared to the cost of administration,
taking into consideration that nearly every mobile home park has a few vaca-
tion trailer spaces, it would be questionable whether the revenue received
would justify the expense.
It was agreed that additional research and information would be re-
quired prior to action on this recommendation.
SALARY ADJUSTMENTS: Mr. Murdoch presented Resolution jointly recommended by the
City Attorney and Personnel Director, to be effective in the event the'"freeze"
is relaxed for those agreements, contracts or written understandings that ex-
isted prior to the "freeze," to provide in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding, as soon as possible, whatever increase, if any, is allowed
through the Federal Government from Cost of Living Council orders or Economic
Stabilization Act, or whatever act is appropriate.
Councilman Thom was of the opinion that in keeping with the spirit
of the Executive Order, and based on the fact that all executive positions
in the City compared favorably throughout the State, whereas other classes
do not compare as favorably, that Division Heads on up should be excluded
from this Resolution and scheduled for a 3.5% increase, instead of 7%.
Councilman Thom further advised, from conversations held with the
industrial executives, that they have been a bit critical of the level of
the City executive salaries, and have stated that they far exceed private
industry in Anaheim, and if so, maybe not quite the amount of increase would
be more in keeping with the stabilization effort.
71-648
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 19, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-47~;. Council discussion was held, and at the conclusion
thereof it was the general feeling that to change what was agreed upon last
year would be reneging on commitments made; thereupon, Councilman Pebley
offered Resolution No. 71R-471 for adoption, as recommended by the Personnel
Director and City Attorney.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING AND ESTAB-
LISMII~G RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR VARIOUS JOB CLASSES, AND SUPERSEDING RESO-
LUTIONS NOS. 70R-471, 70R-472, 70R-488, 71R-268, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-471 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-472 - ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT - RENEWAL OF LEASES: Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-472 for adoption, supporting the Orange
County Airport in its function and strongly recommending to the Orange
County Board of Supervisors that contracts or leases with Air West and Air
California be renewed, and that copies of said Resolution be forwarded to
the other 24 Orange County cities.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY TO RENEW THE LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH AIR
CALIFORNIA AND AIR WEST AT THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 71R-472 duly passed and adopted.
PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE: Mayor Dutton requested permission to leave the
State for a period of 90 days to represent the City of Anaheim at the open-
ing of Walt Disney World in Florida.
Permission was granted, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, se-
conded by Councilman Roth. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:30 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk