1974/03/1974- 243
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~arch 12, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 2:55 P.M.
Signed
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M,
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Fattens
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER DIRECTOR: Thomas F. Liegler
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
FIAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G.' Sneegas led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCIAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Dutton and unani-
mously approved by the City Council:
"Vietnam Veterans Day" - March 29, 1974
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held February 19,
1974, were approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the
reading tn 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 Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANI-
MOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $992,198.22, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-20, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 99: Submitted by Joan Berry, et al, for change in zone from R-A to C-1
at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Co~nission,.pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-37,
found no changes necessary in its action taken September 17, 1973 regarding
E.I.R. No. 99. Action taken by the Planning Commission on that date is set
forth in Resolution No. PC7~-213, finding that E.I.R. No. 99 is adequate
as an informative document and follows the City's established guidelines, that
there would be no significant adverse environmental impact and'recommended
that the City Council adopt E.I.R. No. 99,except that tinder "Environmental
Impact-Whole Concept", Paragraph No. B, Subparagraph Nos. 8 and 9 should be
74- 244
C.i. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
relocated to Paragraph No. F. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Resolution No. PC73-213, recommended disapproval of Reclassification No.
73-74-20 and following subsequent hearing on revised plans, again recommended
disapproval of the requested reclassification pursuant to ResolutionNo. PC74-37.
At the request of Councilman Thom, the City Clerk read the motion
pr6posed for use in certifying environmental impact reports in accordance with
Revised Guidelines adopted by the City Council, effective February 15, 1974.
CERTIFICATION - ENVIROnmENTAL IMPACT REPORTNO. 99: On motion by Councilman
Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council certified that
E.I.R. No. 99,as submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 73-74-20,
to their best belief and knowledge has been completed in compliance with provi-
sions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines and
that they have reviewed and considered the information contained in said E.I.R.
To this motion, Councilman Thom voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Public hearing before the City Council on subject reclassification
was originally scheduled October 16, and December 18, 1973,and continued from
these dates for submission of revised plans to January 29, 1974, at which time
Reclassification No. 73-74-20 and E.I.R. No. 99 were further continued to this
date to allow time for staff analysis and Planning Commission consideration of
the revised plans submitted.
The City Clerk advised that letters in favor of the proposed reclass-
ification were received and have been copied and distributed to the members of
the City Council.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts described the location of subject property
which consists of 4.3 acres and the immediate surrounding land uses, these
being R-3 multiple-family residential to the south; an existing R-1 single-
family subdivision to the west; and the Df.Peter Marshall Elementary School to the
north. The Applicant is requesting reclassification of this property from the
R-A to the C-1 Zone with the express intent of developing a convnercial shopping
center on the property with a food market, various commercial shops and possibly
a bank in the future. Two existing residential structures located on the prop-
erty are proposed to be removed.
Mr. Roberts reported that the revised plans submitted indicate the
parking area is located primarily to the front of the property and the buildings
situated in an "L" shaped fashion on the western portion of the property. The
number of proposed parking spaces exceeds the minimum required for this type of
use. The plans submitted conform in every respect to the site development
standards for the C-1 Zone, however the General Plan designates the area suitable
for medium density residential uses.
Mr. Roberts stated that in E.I.R. No. 99, the acoustical engineer con-
sulted recon~ended that in order to minimize the noise from delivery t~ucks and
vehicles servicing the proposed shopping center from the R-1 tract in~nediately
to the west, it would be necessary to construct a 10-foot high concrete
wall. That comment was based,however,on the original plan which calls for only
a 4-foot wide planter strip on the west boundary, whereas the revised plans in-
dicate a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer strip. It is not known what effect this
additional landscaping area will have on the acoustical engineer's comments,
however,the Applicants have stated they will provide a 10-foot high concrete
wall,as well,if it is necessary.
Mr. Roberts related that some problems have been encountered recently
regarding measures to attenuate the noise from air conditioning machinery. He.
noted that the revised plans submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No.
73-74-20 do not indicate where the air conditioning or refrigerating equipment
is to be located, and it is reco~nended by Development Services Department that
the Applicant be made aware of his responsibilities, should the petition be
approved, to see that adequate measures are taken to attenuate noise from air
conditioning facilities.
In conclusion, Mr. Roberts read the findings from Resolution No.
PC74,37 on which the Planning Conani'ssion based their recommendation for denial.
74-245
City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1.974, 1:30 P.M.
Plans and the file were reviewed at the Council Table, and in
answer to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Roberts advised that the medium
density, R-3 Zone, would permit development of a maximum of 36 units to the
acre. However, he advised that whenever R-3 is adjacent to R-l, the total
number of units usually does not exceed 27 to the acre.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present ~nd wished
to address the Council.
Mr. William H. Miller, 9732 Hazard Avenue, Santa Aha, Agent for the
property owners, advised that he wished to respond to the findings listed
in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC74-37, on which their recommendation
of denial was based. In conjunction with his presentation to Council, he sub-
mitted a large packet of various materials including maps, newspaper articles,
photographs and literature from the Garden Grove Unified School District,
labeled ExhibitNos. 1 through 20.
In response to Finding No. 2 of the Planning Commission resolution,
Mr. Miller referred to Exhibit No. 1 submitted, which is a map of the City of
Anaheim showing the densities adopted by the General Plan. Mr. Miller was of
the opinion that since the orientation of subject parcel is toward Magnolia
Avenue, which is designated a major highway and Crescent being a secondary
street, it is suitable for commercial purposes. He commented that the south-
east corner of Magnolia and Crescent is designated on the General Plan for
commercial uses. He contended that there is a need for certain commercial
developments in older areas of the City and that subject parcel is one of the
few remaining vacant parcels within Planning Area '~", therefore, in his judg-
ment, this commercial development would be fulfilling a need that is recognized
by the General Plan. He referred to the fact that reasonable modifications and
deviations from the General Plan have been implemented in the past.
In response to Finding Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Mr. Miller advised that the
planning for development of this particular property has spanned many months
and noted that during the original hearing before the Planning Commission,
certain recommendations and criticisms of the plans were made by the Commis-
sioners; in particular the absence of a 20-foot buffer zone from the single-
family residential zone to the west. He related that he had worked diligently with
the City Planning staff subsequent to that hearing to make various adjustments.
One major modification of the original plan was the elimination of the "L"
shaped structure which was replaced with two free-standing modules which open
access for traffic to the rear of the shopping center. Further he related
that they discarded plans to include a Winchell's donut franchise store be-
cause this was considered to be an "attractive nuisance", as well as plans for
a free-standing restaurant on the corner portion. He indicated they felt the
changes made were meaningful and shonld have been recognized as such by the
Planning Commission.
In reference to Finding No. 6, regarding the noise which would be
generated by delivery trucks, he related that the shopping center would be well
buffered from the established R-1 tract to the west by a 10-foot high block
wall,as recommended in E.I.R. No. 99,and a 20-foot landscaped buffer zone as
suggested by the City Planning Commission. The residential apartments to the
south of the property line would be buffered from the shopping center by a 6-
foot high wall and a row of trees, and there is, in addition, a 25-foot alley
between the wall and the rear of the nearest shopping center building. He
remarked that in their planning, they have met all existing standards required
by local ordinances which dictate the relationship between medium density
residential and commercial zones.
Mr. Miller referred to Exhibit Nos. 18 and 19, submitted in connec-
tion with Finding No. 7 of the Planning Co~ntssion resolution. He contended
that the subject site meets the criteria for the proposed use and the General
Plan indicates the need for this type of development. The exhibits noted are
an analysts of the trade area for the particular food market and photographs
of existing food markets and other retail stores within the prospective trade
area. He contended that these existing stores either do not provide
the one-stop shopping service concept proposed, or are small,
74-246
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
unsophisticated and unable to meet current demands. He further noted that in
his opinion, most people would prefer a one-stop center if it were avail-
able, and would thereby create additional savings of fuel. He advised that he
estimates there are 39,000 people in the potential trade area of this proposed
food market and 6,000 of these people are located within a one-half mile radius
and could either walk or bicycle to the shopping center. Further, he related
that the proposed shopping center would serve the residents of the nearby trailer
park, many of whom are elderly and living on fixed incomes, and they would wel-
come a good discount market.
Mr. Miller further stated that the Orange County Assessors' Office
projects that real estate taxes on this project will amount to approximately
$40,000 per year. Since the expected life of the center is 40 years, Mr. Miller
cited that even assuming the taxes do not increase, the shopping center will
have paid in 20 years, $800,000 towards the support of the community and school
district. In addition, the food market estimates a sales tax of $30,000 or more
per year from the proposed center. Further Mr. Miller remarked that it is the
right of the people to have competition in their area to keep food prices down.
In response to Finding No. 8 of the City Planning Commission resolu-
tion, Mr. Miller related that he has completed an in-depth study of the various
schools in Anaheim and neighboring communities which indicates that commercial
properties and schools are compatible and that most schools are oriented towards
the major highways and secondary streets near high concentrations of people.
He referred to Exhibit Nos. 2 through 9, previously submitted, which were photo-
graphs of various school locations adjacent to commercial properties. He re-
ferred to Exhibit Nos. 11 through 15 and 1Sa, which were incorporated into the
packet previously submitted, and which illustrate the fact that school popula-
tion is on the decline.
Mr. Miller referred to E~hibit No. 20 previously submitted, corres-
pondence from Herman Kimmel and Associates dated August 14, 1973, and advised
that the City of Anaheim Traffic Division has figures which indicate that no
accident has occurred involving a child traveling to and from school due to
automobile ingress or egress from a shopping center for the past 14 years.
In conclusion, Mr. Miller submitted a petition which he stated con-
tained 400. signatures in favor of the proposed shopping center,as well as several
written statements also in favor.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council in favor
of the proposed reclassification.
Mr. Stephen F. Gallagher, 106 North Claudina Street, advised that he
has been an Anaheim resident for 40 years and that together with his wife, he
has owned a 2/gth interest in subject property for the last ten years. He ad-
vised that the present taxes are $3,600 per year on the larger parcel and reit-
erated that with development the taxes would increase to $40,000 per year and
that the school district will receive a considerable portion of this amount.
He remarked that he is aware that much of the opposition to this
development stems from the nearby parents concerned for the safety and welfare'
of their children. He remarked that the only children who would be affected,
by having to travel past or through the proposed shopping center,would be those
living to the southwest of the intersection of Crescent and Magnolia. Further
he noted that the children are traveling to and from school an estimated total
of one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon. He contended that one
of the factors involved in the opposition by some property owners is the fact
that if the commercial zoning is approved, an additional 10-foot strip of prop-
erty will be necessary on the south side of Crescent for street widening purposes.
He felt that if the facts were analyzed, it would be evident that the children
are not involved to any great extent, but that much of the comment received in
opposition was the result of form letters which were automatically signed.
Councilman Stephenson asked Mr. Gallagher if he had ever given any
thought or study to developing subject property into some form of housing unit,
to which Mr. Gallagher replied affirmatively, noting however that he has never
received any firm offers for same.
74-247
City Hall~ Anaheim, ~.~]ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Gallagher added that the reason for this, he believes, is be-
cause of the amount of traffic on both Magnolia and Crescent Avenues. Further
he expressed the opinion that 140 apartment units developed on subject property
would create more of a traffic and safety problem than the proposed shopping
center project. He remarked that Alpha Beta is an outstanding merchandising
company and that if they have analyzed the location and suitability of the
property and are willing to become a major tenant, then it is fairly certain
that the center will be a successful one.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition.
Mr. Kenneth Klotz, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, acting as spokesman
for some of the residents in the immediate area who are in opposition, noted
that the main thrust of Mr. Miller's presentation was the fact that this devel-
opment would be a good business project for the owners and developers. He
contended that that is not the only factor to be considered by the City Council
and that the health, safety and well-being of the community, and especially of
the younger children attending the nearby Dr. Peter Marshall Elementary School
should be given equal consideration.
He advised that they have submitted approximately 700 names on peti-
tions to the Planning Commission of individuals strongly opposed to this pro-
ject. He was of the opinion that if the safety of the children were not such
a pressing matter, the documentation submitted in opposition could not have
been obtained. This documentation includes: a resolution in opposition from
the Magnolia Elementary School Board; a letter from the Principal of the Dr.
Peter Marshall School; a letter from the Executive Board of the Dr. Peter
Marshall P.T.A.; all expressing opposition on the basis of the safety of the
local school children. He advised that representatives of the Magnolia School
Board and Mr. Stinaon, Principal of the Dr. Peter Marshall Elementary School
were present in the Council Chambers.
Mr. Klotz requested an opportunity to review and comment on the peti-
tion submitted by Mr. Miller. He called attention to the fact that at the last
meeting of the City Planning Commission, Government Code Section 658.60 which
recently went into effect was introduced into the debate. He recalled that
this section of the Code disapproves of land use ordinances which are contrary
to the General Plan and if such zoning is approved, the Code sets up specific
remedies and procedures by which said section can be enforced. He remarked
that it would seem to him that the General Plan would have to be amended in
order to implement approval of subject reclassification.
Mr. Klotz further explained that the reasons the area residents feel
this particular development is contrary to good city planning include: (1.)
That property values in the immediate araa would be detrimentally affected
since it would constitute a commercial development in the heart of a residen-
tial area; (2.) That it would affect the social and economic stability of the
neighborhood since ~he smaller existing shops could not compete with the
larger supermarket; (3.) It would increase the traffic hazard for the local
children who not only travel to and from schools, but use the playground ad-
jacent to the Dr. Peter Marshall Elementary School during after school hours.
In addition, Mr. Klotz related that there are nuisance factors which
would be associated with such development and these include that this would be
a major "attractive nuisance" for young children on their way to the school;
that the proposed 10-foot high will poses a danger for children who may climb
and fall from same; that the proposed shopping center would attract large num-
bers of transient people to the neighborhood increasing the probability of van-
dali~m, as well as introducing a transient element adjscent to an elementary
school; and that the shopping center would create additional noise. He remarked
that the approval of this reclassification would be the first development of
this type directly adjacent to an elementary school and that this would introduce
a dangerous precedent. He noted that examples of other dangerous areas in which
elementary schools are located,as cited previously by Mr. Miller,are not valid
arguments for the proposed reclassification.
Mr. Klotz pointed out that the E.I.R. indicates the noise level on
the street presently is 64 dBA prior to development and that the AnaheimMunicipal
74-248
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M
Code provides that no person shall create sound levels in excess of 60 dBA on
the property line. According to the E.I.R. report, the development of the pro-
posed project may increase the routine sound levels to 75 to 78 dBA. He noted
that the developer has provided a sound buffer zone for the residential homes
to the west, however no buffer or sound attenuating measures are proposed to
be provided for the elementary school directly adjacent and to the north.
In conclusion, Mr. Klotz remarked that the area residents feel that
the best interests of their con~nunity would be served if the property were
developed in an alternate manner. The best alternative, he indicated,
would be a recreational development of some sort, however they recognized that
this might not be a practical solution and further suggested a one-story apart-
ment building may be the next best choice.
Mayor Dutton pointed out to Mr. Klotz that the very same arguments
he has advanced against commercial zoning on subject propert~ have also been
advanced against multiple-family residential developments.
Mr. Klotz related that they recognize that a park would not be a
practical solution for the property owners however wished to point out this
would best serve the areas residents.
Dr. Sol Teitelbaum, 511 North Hanover, addressed the Council in oppo-
sition and asked those in the audience opposed to the reclassification and
development of the property to indicate their feelings by raising their hands and
a large number of persons in the audience complied; he also requested those in
favor of the proposed reclassification to indicate their position by raising
their hands and fewer persons complied.
The Mayor reminded Dr. Teitelbaum that the Council represents 186,200
individuals living throughout the City, not just those present in the audience.
Mr. John Peek, 2625 West Baylor Circle, referred to a letter in oppo-
sition to this proposed reclassification which he had forwarded to the Council
several months eariler. With Council's permission he read a copy of said letter
in full which referred to alternative uses for subject parcel, these being either
residential development or optimally, a recreational center for the west end of
the City of Anaheim since there is a deficiency in park facilities in that gen-
eral area. The second most appropriate use for the property according to Mr.
Peek's letter would be one-story apartment buildings which would not greatly
increase the traffic flow,nor greatly increase enrollment in the neighborhood
schools. The next most suitable in Mr. Peek's opinion would be a multiple-family
development of two-story units if not more than 125 such units were developed.
Further Mr. Peek's letter referred to the location of subject parcel
directly adjacent from the school; the increased traffic hazard which would re-
sult from the additional traffic; and the severe noise problem which would be
over the limit set by Anaheim City ordinance according to E.I.R. No. 99, Item
No. 4, which estimates that this project would generate between 75 and 78 dBA.
In conclusion, Mr. Peek's letter indicated that perhaps the most seri-
ous problem which would arise from the approval of subject reclassification
would be the precedent set. He believes that only proper City planning and con-
sideration of the needs of individuals living in congested areas can relieve the
social and economic problems which exist in large cities of the United States
today; and only with that planning and consideration can such problems be pre-
vented. In addition he mentioned the possibility that some of the signatures
which appear on the petition submitted by Mr. Miller, in his opinion,may not be
valid.
The Mayor noted that the City CounCil is aware of the potentiality
for misrepresentation in petitions submitted and that this situation exists
whether the petition is submitted in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Patricia Bennett, 2656 Crescent Avenue, responded to Mr. Miller's
comment regarding the location of · one-stop shopping center in the general
trade area which he proposes to provide. She advised that the shopping center
74- 24 9
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M
located at the northwest corner of Dale and La Palma Avenues has approximately
90 to 100 stores and these,combined with the Food King Market located just
across the street,provide as close to a one-stop shopping center as can be
available from a housewife's point of view.
Mr. Andrew Fox, Manager, Business Services for Magnolia School Dis-
trict, read a letter which was previously mailed to the City Council dated
September 19, 1973 from Mr. Joseph E. Butterworth, President of the Board of
Trustees of this School District indicating that the District greatly appreci-
sted the action taken by the City Planning Commission to recommend denial of
reclassification of the property to the C-1 Zone and requesting that the
City Council support said action by denying commercial uses on subject
parcel.
Councilman Stephenson asked Mr. Fox if the School District would be
opposed to development of the property as an apartment complex, to which Mr.
Fox replied that they would not be opposed to a residential use for the prop-
erty.
It was determined that sufficient evidence in opposition had been
presented,and the Mayor offered the Applicant a few minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Miller assured Council that the signatures on the petition which
he had submitted in favor of the proposed shopping center were valid and were
collected by himself on ~ person-to-person basis, that he did not use any other
techniques to obtain signatures. He cited statistics which indicated that a
majority of those people approached by himself were in favor of the shopping
center proposal and did agree to sign the petition.
Mr. Miller contended that there are safe routes for children walking
to the Dr. Peter Marshall School and that ~/o of the parents he had contacted
and confronted with this question felt that the shopping center would not prove
to be a hazard for their children.
Mayor Dutton closed the hea~ing.
Councilman Stephenson expressed the opinion that the subject site
would be a poor location for a shopping center. He noted that there are several
small stores in the area and that larger shopping centers are readily avail-
able within a short distance away. Further, he explained that he has always
attempted to follow the General Plan and that he does not favor spot zoning
unless absolutely necessary. In this instance, he indicated he could not see
any absolute necessity for a shopping center at subject location but that the
property would be more appropriately developed into some type of residential
use as indicated on the General-Plan.
Councilman Sneegas referred to the many comments made about over-
crowding of subject area and the inherent problems of same. He pointed out
that with a residential development one could be talking about putting as many
as 300 additional individuals into this area. Further he noted that the City's
experience in the past has demonstrated that shopping centers do not pose undue
threat to the safety of children since there have been virtually no accidents
involving children at shopping centers. He stated that he wonders about the
Council basing a decision on emotionally charged statements, and he remarked that
if Council feels that apartments would be more appropriate for subject property,
then that would be a more logical basis for denial of subject reclassification.
Councilman Dutton related that there has been a tremendous amount of
comment to the effect that the City Council has not adhered to the General
Plan. He refuted this, noting the Council is on target with the General Plan
and has in many instances allowed lower densities than called for in the Gen-
eral Plan. He noted'that the-.Geheral Plan in this instance designates subject
area as R-3 and that he for.o~e does not propose to change this.
Counci~anThom ~ema~ked that he is in concurrence with the recom-
mendations of the C~ty~Planning~Commission and that basically the question is
one of proper usage ~f'!the land. He felt that even a lower density than indi-
cated on the General plan might be appropriate.
74-250
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19~. 1974, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-113: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-113 for
adoption, denying Reclassification No. 73-74-20 as recommended by the City
Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF
THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (73-74-20)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
Sneegas
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-113 duly passed and adopted.
CONTINUED DECISION - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-38: Submitted by West Anaheim Com-
munity Hospital, Inc., for a change in zone from R-A to C-O on the north side
of Orange Avenue, west of 3033 West Orange Avenue, together with application
for Exemption Status from the requirement for filing of Environmental Impact
Report.
Public hearing was held on March 5, 1974 at which time the City
Council, on recommendation of the City Planning Commission, granted Exemption
Status from filing of an Environmental Impact Report to subject reclassifica-
tion.
The City Clerk further reported that following public hearing on
March 5, 1974, Councilman Stephenson offered a resolution to approve Reclassifi-
cation No. 73-74-38, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission pursuant to their Resolution No. PC74-32, with amendment to Condi-
tion No. 10 and further subject to additional conditions "a" and "b", as set
forth in the Minutes of March 5, 1974 (Page No. 74-219). The roll call vote on
this resolution resulted in a tie vote, Councilman Sneegas being absent, and
therefore the action on Reclassification No. 73-74-38 was continued to this
date.
Mr. Watts summarized that the property under consideration is a rec-
tangularly shaped parcel of land being divided into a northerly and southerly
portion by the Carbon Creek Channel of the Orange County Flood Control District.
The development proposed in conjunction with the requested reclassification to
the C-O Zone is to utilize the southerly 3.6 acre portion for a medical office
building; the remaining northerly 1.2 acre portion to remain vacant at the pre-
sent time.
Mr. Watts reported that following the March 5, 1974 public hearing,
he reco~Lm,ended that the intent of the City Planning Commission could better be
accomplished by reading an ordinance only on the property located south of the
Orange County Flood Control District Channel, and require that prior to an
ordinance being read on the northerly portion, plans be submitted to the City
Planning Commission and City Council.
Councilman Thom observed that the entire matter could probably be re-
solved if the West Anaheim Community Hospital, Inc., representative would make
a public stipulation that they do not wish to include the portion of land north
of the Carbon Creek Channel in the resolution of intent to C-O in Reclassifica-
tion No. 73-74-38.
Mr. Francis Weber, representing West Anaheim Community Hospital, INC.,
in the rezoning petition stated that their concern at this moment is not the
northerly parcel; that their plans for development are currently restricted to
the southerly parcel.
Councilman Thom inquired whether Mr. Weber meant that they do not wish
to have the north portion included in the resolution of intent to C-O at this
time, to which Mr. Weber replied affirmatively.
74-251
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO.UNCIL MINTUES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 7aR-il4: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-114
for adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing
the zone to C-O as requested, on the portion located south of the Orange
County Flood Control District Carbon Creek Channel only, subject to the condi-
tions recommended by the City Planning Commission, as follows, with amendment
to Condition No. 10:
1. That street lighting facilities along Orange Avenue shall be
installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance
with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director
of Public Utilities and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the
City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of
the above-mentioned requirements.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Orange Avenue for tree planting
purposes.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the north
and west property lines.
7. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be down-lighting
from a maximum height of 6 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from
the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Orange County Flood Control
District.
9. That the final parking plan shall be approved by the Development
Services Department, and any landscaped areas in the parking areas shall be
protected with 6-inch high,concrete curbs, and concrete wheel stops shall be
provided for parking spaces.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
11. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolu-
tion, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a
period of one-year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further
time as the City Council may grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 3, 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.
(73-74-38 - C-O)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-114 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 130; RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-36 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 113: To consider updating the Anahaim General Plan
relating to the area generally located between La Palma Avenue and the River-
side Freeway and Euclid Street and Brookhurst Street in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 73-74-36 submitted by Brigham Young University, requesting
a change in zone from R-A to PC for property located on the west side of Euclid
Street, north side of La Palma Avenue and northwesterly of the intersection of
La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street. E.I.R. No. 113 refers to subj~ ~t property
and was submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 73-74-36.
74- 25 2
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19,. 1974, 1:30 P.M,
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-43,
recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 130, finding that Exhibit
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, of General Plan Amendment No. 130 do constitute accept-
able alternatives to current policies as illustrated on the General Plan.
Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-44, the City Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council certify to having reviewed and considered the
information contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 113 and that the final
E.I.R. has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the State Guidelines. The E.I.R. Review Committee recommended
that such certification be granted, subject to the requirement that supplemen-
tary E.I.R.'s be submitted in conjunction with each phase of development with-
in the project area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-44,
further recommended approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-36, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That dedication of all public streets shall be made to the City
of Anaheim in accordance with the submitted Circulation Element and with the
adopted City of Anaheim Circulation Element.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the DirectOr of Public Works.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
c~m,encement of structural framing.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
7. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific
plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the PC,
Planning Community, Zone.
8. That tentative and final tract maps of subject property as appro-
priate shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be re-
corded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with
the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets.
10. That the center median strip on subject property shall be land-
scaped and that a perpetual maintenance agreement for said medians, acceptable
to the City Attorney's Office,shall be filed and recorded.
11. That a median, to City of Anaheim standards, shall be installed
on Euclid Street from the Riverside Freeway to a point not less than 100 feet
south of Medical Center Drive.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; provided, however, that the density of the over
all project shall not exceed twelve (12) dwelling units per acre and said modifi-
cations shall be incorporated in the plans prior to City Council review of same,
as stipulated to by the petitioner.
13. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION: On motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council certified that Environmental
Impact Report No. 113 submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No.
73-74-36 has been completed in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines and that it has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said E.I.R.; and that such certification
is granted subject to the requirement that supplementary E.I.R.'s be submitted
in conjunction with each phase of development within the project area. MOTION
CARRIED. (Following public hearing on subject reclassification and General Plan
Amendment, Councilman Thom changed his "yes" vote on certification of E.I.R. Noo
113 to a "no". See Page No. 74-261)
Mr. Roberts indicated the boundaries of subject property on the zoning
maps and on the plot plan submitted by the Applicant; these being the Riverside
74-253
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Freeway to the north, La Palma Avenue to the south, Euclid Street to the east.
At the time this application was filed, the majority of the property was under
the County of Orange jurisdiction with an R-4 designation with a small portion
being within the City of Anaheim limits in the R-A Zone.
Mr. Roberts reported that the petitioners have submitted a request
for amendment to the Anaheim General Plan from the current designation as
appropriate for an educational institution to reflect the type of zoning pro-
posed in their development. He noted that existing land uses in the immediate
adjacent area include single-family subdivisions to the west and south; River-
'side Freeway to the north; to the east across Euclid Street the.area is zoned
C-1 and C-2 and R-A and developed with commercial businesses. The adjacent
area to the southeast is zoned C-I, R-3 and R-A and developed with medical
offices, multiple-residential uses and commercial businesses.
Mr. Roberts advised that the Applicant is requesting that the entire
parcel be rezoned to the PC Zone to implement a general plan of development
submitted for the entire 137-acre parcel. The Land Use and Housing Element in-
dicates approximately 185 lakeside condominiums centered around a 4.6-acre
artificial lake on a 19.2-acre parcel; approximately 54'9 single-family attached
condominiums on 2 areas consisting of 12.9 and 26.6 acres respectively; approxi.-
mately 113 apartment units on a 4.4-acre parcel; a 33.0-acre mobilehome park
containing 290 unit spaces; a 15.0-acre office park and a 3.7-acre neighborhood
co~m~ercial center. In addition, the Petitioner proposes to sell and/or dedi-
cate a 9.2-acre public park at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to
existing park facilities provided in conjunction with John Marshall Elementary
School. The overall net density originally proposed by the Applicant for the
entire project area was 12.7 dwelling units per acre, however on the recom-
mendation of the City Planning C~mLission, this overall density was reduced to
12 dwelling units per net or residential acre.
The PC Zone provisions require that the Applicant submit a Master
Plan for development of the entire area which is to include specific elements:
1. Land Use and Housing Element.
2. Circulation Element.
3. Population Element.
4. Services and Facilities Elements.
5. Zoning Plan or Element.
Mr. Roberts explained the mechanics of processing applications under
the PC Zone, specifically that these will each involve public hearings on
specific plans for development prior to actual construction of each segment.
Mr. Roberts indicated the proposed site for each type of dwelling
unit included in the overall plan on the Applicant's plot plan.
Mr. Roberts reported that the Circulation Element submitted by the
Petitioner provides for primary circulation through the development by the
extension of Romneya Drive to intersect with La PalmaAvenue to the southwest.
Romneya Drive is designated as an 88-foot wide collector street with 12-foot
median divider. In addition, extension of Coronet and Falmouth Avenues is pro-
posed.
Mr. Roberts explained that the Services and Facilities Element sub-
mitted has been reviewed by applicable departments and indicates that services
in the area would be adequate for the number of units proposed.
Mr. Roberts reported that the Zoning Element submitted (Exhibit No.
4) provides for the lakeside condominiums and single-family attached condo-
miniums to be developed under R-2 zoning site development standards; the pro-
posed apartment units to be developed under R-3 zoning site development stan-
dards; the adjoining mobtlehome park to be developed under R-A zoning by condi-
tional use permit; and the proposed neighborhood commercial facilities and
office park would be developed under C-1 zoning site development standards.
74-254
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pebley remarked that it would appear to him from materials
submitted that a major portion of subject property, at least 2/3 of it, is in
the County Jurisdiction under an R-4 designation, and inquired how many units
per acre would be allowed under this County zone.
Mr. Roberts replied that the Applicant informed him they could develop
in excess of 30 units per acre under the County R-4 designation.
The City Clerk advised that the Euclid-La Palms No. 3 Annexation has
been recorded as of March 7, 1974 and this area is now within the City of
Anaheim Limits; and that an ordinance is scheduled for first reading to rezone
this property to City of Anaheim R-AZone this date. (Reclassification No. 73-74-35)
Councilman Stephenson asked whether the overalldensity figure of 12
dwelling units to the acre also includes the spaces proposed in the mobilehome
park, to whichMr. Roberts replied affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant were present and satisfied with the
recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Jim Christiansen, 655 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, California,
representing Matreyek Homes, indicated they were satisfied with the recommenda-
tions as set forth by the City Planning Commission, and complimented the City
of Anaheim on its progressive attitude in land use planning. He advised that
his firm intends, if the proposal is approved, to spend $55,000,000 in develop-
ment of this prime property, and that the proposed project will constitute the
second largest residential development in the history of the City. Mr.
Christiansen submitted a letter from the Anaheim Plaza Merchants' Association
indicating the support of 70 retail merchants and 2 major department stores for
the project. Further he mentioned that the Chairman of the Planning Commission,
who has over 40 years experience on the Commission, felt that this land use plan
was one of the best he had ever seen.
Mr. Ralph Martin, Walter, Richardson andAssociates, Land Consultants
and Architects, 230 East 17th Street, Costa Mesa, indicated that they are pro-
posing a variety of type of dwelling units for those individuals who are unable
to find the kind of living environment they desire in the City of Anaheim. He
utilized a chart in his discussion indicating the various units proposed for
the overall project. Mr. Martin noted that there is obviously a communication
problem with those who live in the adjacent area to subject property since what
his company proposes to build will be an addition to the City of which it can
be proud. He advised that to continue the existing pattern of residential R-1
subdivision would not be responsive to the housing market. Also, in order to
meet the tremendous competition,they felt that they had to create something more
than just an ordinary development. It is for this reason that, in addition to
the variety of dwelling units, they have proposed to create a lake in the area.
Mr. Martin related that certainly the property adjacent to the River-
side Freeway can be considered one of the windows into the City of Anaheim. It
is for this reason that they are anxious to develop an attractive mobile home
park and office park, using the water again as a amenity in the latter project.
Mr. Martin next addressed himself to environmental considerations
which were considered in the E.I.R. and which primarily are problems which re-
sult in a protest against density. He noted that these fundamental problems
can be broken down to specifics--traffic, school children generated, and the
effect that density may have on the property values in the surrounding area. He
indicated that his firm worked for a long time with the City staff to determine
that the traffic burden generated by the proposed project could be handled on
the City streets. He noted that originally they had developed several alter- .
native land use plans which would be contingent upon another traffic pattern and
which had an entirely private loop circulation system with exits and entrances
on Euclid and La Palms only. He advised that it was at the request of the City
Traffic Division that the extension of Romneya Drive was incorporated into the
traffic pattern proposed and that the City Traffic Engineer feels this will help
to alleviate some of the congestion currently experienced at the intersection of
Euclid and La Palma; nor had they planned to extend Coronet or Falmouth Avenues,
these extensions were also suggested by the City Traffic Division. He pointed
74-.255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
out that there is an emotional,as well as factual,argument and that the facts
in this instance are that the City Traffic Division as well as their own
traffic consultants, Herman Kimmel and Associates, believe that the pattern
proposed will work and that the existing street will not be over burdened.
Further, he mentioned that this entire project will take some time to build
and that they certainly would not undertake such a large investment or develop-
ment if they felt that it would cause severe traffic problems,as this would be
detrimental to the sales of their units.
In regard to schools, Mr. Martin stated that when school facilities
are discussed, the assumption is always made that existing schools must be
capable of accommodating all of the students which may be generated by a given
project. He felt that if this premise were allowed to pervade private develop-
ment, Anaheim would still be a primarily agricultural community. Mr. Martin
advised that the School District at the present time has indicated that the
nearby schools are under the capacity which they once experienced. There is
no question but that the development of an additional 1,100 dwelling units in
the immediate area ultimately will generate more pupils than the existing
school can accommodate; however he further noted that on a per unit or acre
basis, these dwelling units will generate more than a sufficient share of tax
revenue to support the solution to this problem.
Regarding potential impact on surrounding properties, Mr. Martin
remarked that he was certain that a $55,000,000 investment on 137 acres could
not be detrimental to surrounding land values but could only improve the situ-
ation.
In conclusion, Mr. Martin utilized the plot plan to explain some of
the anticipated traffic problems and possible solutions, and in particular the
fact that the problem is compounded because of the close proximity to the inter-
section of Euclid Avenue and the off-ramps to the Riverside Freeway, this be-
ing the reason that the main traffic emphasis will be placed on Romneya Drive.
Mr. Martin pointed out that adjacent to the existing single-family
subdivision to the west, they are proposing to construct townhouses which will
be owned by the people who live in them and will not be rental units. He ex-
plained that in his opinion, the City has adequate provision in its Site Devel-
opment Standards which call for no two-story structures within 150 feet of the
property line of an R-1 parcel, and that this is all the assurance which is
necessary. He could,therefore ,see no reason to provide additional R-1 homes
in their project as a buffer zone on this boundary but rather felt that the
problems should be solved through architectural design.
Mr. Jim Chrtsttansen added that one of the most important items to
be considered is the possibility of acquiring the property adjacent to
John Marshall School for development as a park. He explained that his firm
had offered the property to the City and had also offered to arrange defer-
ment of the payment.
The Mayor asked if anyone else in favor wished to address the Council.
Mr. Bob Miller, 881 South Citron, advised that he has been an Anaheim
resident for 12 years. He spoke in favor of the proposed reclassification and
development project on behalf of the construction industry. He remarked that
he feels this particular project is well planned and he complimented the Plan-
ning Cmmnission on their approval of it.
Mr. Miller advised that recently, as an industry representative, he
has had to get out to fight the "no growth" issue. He advised that currently
there are 1,500 plus carpenters who are out of work in Orange County and that
for each of these there are seven others in related fields who are also out of
work.
Mr. Miller advised that the type of unit proposed in subject project
has proven in San Juan Captstrano, Mission Vtejo and other areas not to gen-
erate many children of school age. He urged the Council to approve what he
felt was basically a good plan and advised that this will not only be benefi-
cial to the City of Anaheim but to the construction industry as well.
74-256
City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M
Mr. L. Lo Mills, 1962 West La Palma Avenue, advised that he and his
neighbors have been hoping for years that some plan for development would
come forth for subject property. He advised that he thinks the proposal as
presented represents a good plan for utilization of that property.
Mr. Mills stated that he would like to see this property developed as
is proposed because he feels certain that such a development would increase the
value of his own home Further he related that he lives as close to subject
parcel as anyone who ~as signed the petition in opposition could live and that
neither he nor anyone in his neighborhood was asked to sign.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition.
Mrs. Donna York, 934 Fern Street, advised that there are many younger
couples living in the Orange County area and in the immediate vicinity of this
project, and that these couples either do have young children or plan to have
families. She stated she did not object to development on the property but to
the size of the development which is proposed. She felt that something of
smaller proportions would be better for the schools, people and all factors
involved.
Mrs. David Ao Reed, Jr., 914 Fairview Street, advised that she is a
past president of the JohnMarshall School P.T.A., and has been active in other
cormnunity projects. She stated that at the present time, there are 865 students
in attendance at the John Marshall School and 435 of them have to cross Brookhurst
and 215 cross La PalmaAvenue for a total of 650 children who would be exposed to
additional traffic on these two main thoroughfares which would be generated by
the proposed project.
In addition to the school enrollment, Mrs. Reed advised that there is
a successful park and recreation program at John Marshall School during the
summer, after school and on Saturdays, with 9,622 school children involved and
there are no school crossing guards available for these activities. Mrs. Reed
expressed the opinion that the extension of Falmouth will set John Marshall
School off to itself with heavy traffic surrounding it.
Mrs. Reed further noted that Brookhurst Junior High School has an
enrollment of 1,230 students and between 600 to 700 of these students must travel
in some way through the Brookhurst-La Palma intersection. She remarked that
she had been instrumental in attempts in the past to get traffic slow downs or
a stop light preceeding the crosswalk on this major intersection and was told
this was not feasible.
In addition, Mrs. Reed advised that there are currently three empty
classrooms at John Marshall School, however these are being put to good uses.
She related that current studies indicate that single-family homes average fewer
school age children than they did in 1960,whereas apartment units average more.
She concluded with the statement that she was not against development on this
property but is opposed to development at the densities proposed.
Mrs. Joan Colwell, 951Fairview, concurred withMr. Miller's state-
ment that one cannot stop progress, however, felt you can control it.and
that many cities instead of up-zoning are attempting to down-zone because
of the problems encountered with high-density type projects.
Mrs. Colwell stated that several people whom she approached to sign
the petition in opposition shared the opinion that the City government is unre-
sponsive and, therefore, their signatures on the petition or their opinions will
make no difference whatsoever. She further related that she has found there is
discontentment with the densities in the City as of now and that the resultant
problems are overcrowded schools, polluted air, and increased crime rate. She
called to Council's attention the fact that surrounding her particular R-1 tract,
specifically to the northwest, east and south, there are condominiums and/or
apartments and she felt that the single-family residents are slowly being squeezed
OUt.
74-257
City fI~ll, Anaheim, California - COb'NCIL MINU~I~S -March 19a 1974~ 1:30
Councilman Dutton pointed out that the City Council is elected'to
represent not just one specific area of the City but the entire 186,200 residents
and therefore must consider zoning and development applications from all angles
including the effect on the local economy and the number of people who will be
employed through same. He noted that the Anaheim City Council has adhered to
the General Plan and that the growth rate of the City of Anaheim is far below
that of the rest of the County.
Mrs. Colwell questioned as to why employment could not be obtained
for these individuals by building single-family homes.
Councilman Dutton responded that a developer will build only what
the market demand supports. He stated that the Council has sought to provi¢ie
a broad range of housing possibilities for the citizens of Anaheim..
Mrs. Colwell referred to a letter from the Anaheim Elementary School
District Superintendent (not submitted and not on file) which stated that there
will have to be bussing of children to other schools if additional strain is
placed on current facilities.
Councilman Dutton remarked that historically the Anaheim School
Districts have met the needs of the people as they become evident.
Mr. Ben Bay, 2148 West Grayson Avenue, advised that he lives within
one City block of the proposed development and that he has personally talked
with a majority of the people living in the R-1 area bounded by the Riverside
Freeway, Brookhurst Street, La Palma Avenue and the subject property. He
stated that they have submitted a petition within excess of 550 signatures,
and he personally could account for at least 300 of them from this area.
He has therefore canvassed these two precincts thoroughly and questioned from
his experience, the developer's co~nents that those individuals especially liv-
ing on Holly Street and Sierra Circle. immediately adjacent to subject property,
are in favor of the proposed project.
Mr. Bay stated that the people who have signed the petition and have
spoken here today are not opposed to development per se, that they are aware
something has to go on that property. They are opposed to the density which
is proposed. He expressed the opinion that the best project for that area
would be an R-1 development. The petition requests that the density permitted
be restricted to eight dwelling units per acre. He indicated that he feels the
land is being prostituted by a ~eneral Plan with which he does not agree. He
further indicated that he does not agree with the concept of PC zoning and that
he feels the technique of zoning will lead to nothing but apartments and con-
dominiums in this City.
Mr. Bay stated that the concerned citizens who have attended this
meeting should not have to be here; but that they came because the Planning
C~ission and a majority of the City Council have, in their opinions, so re-
duced these zoning capabilities of the City that any density could be permis-
sible. He charged that the Council was elected to protect the rights of the
citizens in the City, and to protect the R-1 homeowner from the encroachment
of increased density.
Mr. Bay stated that the Enviroumental Impact Report is slanted to
the developer's benefit and that when it states the project will have a popu-
lation impact of 2,900 people, he estimates this could actually amount to as
high as 6,000, but will probably fall somewhere in between, such as 4,500 people.
He stated that the E.I.R. submitted completely ignores the west side of this
development and does not mention what the impact will be of the traffic
crease resulting from the extension of Coronet and Falmouth at the corner of
La Palms and Brookhurst. He disagreed with the figures presented for esti-
mated increase of traffic on Coronet and Falmouth since there is no mention
of any study being made to determine these figures. He related present
difficulties leaving the tract via these streets at peak hours.
Mr. Bay contended that it has not been mentioned that the densities
proposed on subject property take into consideration the artificial lake and
74-258
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
9.2 acres of park land. He stated that the City's consideration of accepting
or purchasing 9.2 acres of park land, in view of the fact that the City standard
for parks is 1.5 acres per 1,000 population, implies to him that the proposed
project will generate in the neighborhood of 6,000 people.
Councilman Dutton pointed out that this proposed park site would
serve not only the residents of the new development but the existing population
in that park service area.
Mr. Bay continued by stating that in his estimation the E.I.R. has
understated the school problem and traffic problem and that the drainage situ-
ation has not yet been thoroughly discussed since the report indicates drainage
will be under the Riverside Freeway to the north. He commented that from
~alking to property owners near the north boundary of subject property,the cur=
rent drainage system is inadequate and could not handle additional runoff~water.
He stated that the hazard inherent with development of an unprotected 15-foot
deep lake near an elementary school has not yet been discussed.
Mr. Bay advised that he has reviewed law books, and has never seen
a case taken to court where profit, noise, traffic or existing variances were
the excuse or the legal reason to put high density next to an R-1 area.
Mr. Bay remarked that the City Council and the Planning Commission
have conceived and nurtured a 'Trankenstein" with PC zoning and that the results
of its application are their direct responsibility. He stated that the Council
must show the citizens who they represent when it comes to density. He indica-
ted that many people in the City feel that the key issue at the April 9, 1974
election will be land abuse by density.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz Street, advised that she represents
C.O.A.L. (Coalition Of Anaheim Leaders), which group was formed by representa-
tives from homeowner, educational and civic organizations throughout the City
to provide a framework and sounding board for concerned citizens to become in-
volved in solving the problems of the City. She related that the objectives of
this organization are:
1. Better communications between the citizens and City government.
2. To up-date the General Plan and have the people represented in
that planning.
3. To establish a sound fiscal policy--issues which require obliging
assets of the City as collateral for bonded indebtedness should be
voted on by the people.
4. To stress the quality of growth and not the quantity.
5. The consideration of the health and safety of all residents.
6. The development of park and libraries and acquisition of new sites.
7. The representation of minorities on boards and commissions.
In addition Mrs. Dinndorf addressed herself to Mr. Miller's earlier
comments relative to the situation in the construction industry. She remarked
that it is their own technology which has put many carpenters out of work, plus
the fact that developers no longer build into their homes the details such as
hardwood floors for which carpenters are hired, but use pre-fabricated compon-
ents throughout. In addition she noted that union costs sometimes make the
hiring of carpenters and other skilled personnel prohibitive.
RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilman Sneegas seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:40 P.M.)
AF.TERRECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present.
(4:50 P.M.)
Mr. John Clough, Registered Civil Engineer, appeared on behalf of
the Forest Lawn Cemetery Association, owners of the medical center complex loca-
ted east of subject parcel,as well as the undeveloped property just south of
Romneya Drive. He posted exhibits on the wall of the Council Chamber which were
utilized during his presentation.
74-259
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
Mr. Clough advised that Forest Lawn Cemetery Association is not
opposed to the proposed development, however they do have some concerns about
access problems and traffic generation,as well as the planned pattern of
traffic flow into and out of the proposed development.
Utilizing an area map which he had posted as an exhibit, Mr. Clough
pointed out that access to subject property is absolutely prohibited from the
north by the Riverside Freeway. It is to be discouraged from existing R-1 on
the west. He noted that left-turn modification from Medical Center Drive onto
Euclid is prohibited because of the proximity to the Riverside Freeway ramps,
so that access from the east is also limited.
Mr. Clough indicated that the EoI.R. does recognize that one of the
peak problems of this development as it is proposed is traffic and specifically
referred to Page No. 54 of said report. He advised that they have utilized
the criteria on traffic generators prepared by the California Division of
Highways, December, 1972,to check some of the traffic estimates presented in
the E.I.R. and pursuant to this review, with the values given in this table,
they have produced figures which are considerably in excess of those quoted in
the E.I.R.
The E.I.R. recognizes and Mr. Clough emphasized that the proposed
office complex is a large traffic generator which will not have direct or ade-
quate access. The only possible method of alleviating this problem is to pro-
vide an entrance street connecting Romneya Avenue to Medical Center Drive with-
in the existing medical center complex by removing a parking area within the
medical center and constructing a new street. This street would remove a
total of 60 existing parking spaces in the medical center and further, since
pursuant to the Anaheim Zoning Code 18 parking spaces are requried to support
each 1,000 square feet of medical or dental offices, the medical center complex
would not only lose 60 parking spaces but 10,000 feet of building space as
well. In addition to losing a string of medical suites, Mr. Clough pointed out
this would split the complex, and make it more difficult for patients and doctors
to utilize the facilities currently available by walking from doctor's office
to lab to radiology, etc.
Mr. Clough stated that one of the major omissions from E.I.R. No.
113 in his opinion is the analysis of the effect on existing traffic from the
medical center complex and hospital and the R-1 tract to the west; that this
has been completely ignored. He quoted from E.I.R. No. 113, Page No. A-4 that
"this report will not attempt to estimate the volume of existing traffic with-
in the area that would use Romneya and Coronet (which is Medical Center Drive)
since it would involve an extensive study of a much larger area." Mr. Clough
contended that if traffic generated from these areas will be involved it should
be considered as a part of the overall picture. In addition, Exhibit Nos. 2
and 3 included within E.I.R. No. 113 refer to traffic generated by the proposed
development only and do not include the existing traffic flow which is gener-
ated by the medical office complex and the R-1 tract.
Using the values presented in the State of California report on
traffic generation, Mr. Clough cited the following figures which reflect the
estimated traffic flow from the following traffic generating factors would be:
Existing 140-bed hospital
Existingmedicalcenter
lO0-bed hospital now under
construction
Projection - future addition to
this hospital to 400 beds
Undeveloped portion of R-3 zoned
property, if developed to
standards
(an estimated increase of
5,000 vehicles per day if ~ of
this parcel is developed to
medical offices)
ESTIMATE OF A~D~T.
2,560
6,775
3,300
7,320
1,760
74-Z60
City Hal!a Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19~ 1974, 1:30 P~M~
Mr. Clough stated that these figures indicated a total of 12,635 A.D.T.
which is not considered in E.I.R. No. 113. He indicated that they feel another
hard look should be taken at this traffic pattern since the ultimate traffic
flow through and adjacent to subject property could reach between 2~0,000 to
28,000 vehicles per day° Mr. Clough remarked that his firm does not think that
the current flow pattern will work and that some alternative studies, perhaps
showing some changes in the internal road system should be conducted. He also
suggested that further consideration should be given to a left-turn movement
from Medical Center Drive onto Euclid Street, and he gave examples Of left-turn
sign&la on intersecting streets just as close or closer to freeway off-ramps as
the Medical Center Drive/Euclid Street light would be to the Riverside Freeway.
Mr. Clough stated that his firmwas not contacted for comment relative
to the proposed project and was unaware of the specifics until the Planning
C~mnission meeting, even though they do keep their telephone number posted on
the Euclid Street frontage for prospective tenants.
In conclusion, Mr. Clough expressed the opinion that the development
as now proposed will have a major detrimental impact on existing and future
adjacent properties and on the City of Anaheim because of the traffic problems
it will create. He reco, m,ended and urged that the Council postpone any favorable
decision on this zoning application, pending further study and adequate solution
of the problems enumerated.
Mrs. Joan Watts, 2117 Grayson Avenue, related that she has lived at
this address for many years and as a child attended the John Marshall School,
and hopefully her children would also attend this school. She ad-
vised that she had convinced her husband to move ba~k into Anaheim from the
Los Angeles area because of the cleaner enviromment for their two children, who
because of smog and other environmental problems are both asthmatic. Further
she indicated that there are many children living in the R-1 tract west of the
proposed project and she feels that the creation of a lake would pose a danger
for them and should be protected in some manner. Her main objection was that
the proposed development would generate additional cars which will add more
pollution to the air.
Councilman Dutton pointed out that Anaheim is the recipient of air
from the south Los Angeles basin because of prevailing wind conditions and steps
to decrease smog in Anaheim alone will not accomplish the objective.
It was determined that sufficient evidence had been presented in
opposition and the Mayor offered the Applicant a few minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Martin refuted the allegations that this project will be an apart-
ment development. He stated that generally apartments are regarded as rental
properties and are significantly higher in density than anything they propose
to build. He reiterated that these units will essentially be a single-
family attached development with the sole exception of 3.5 acres which is far
removed from the adjacent single-family areas, which will be developed with
apartment units.
Mr. Martin further explained that if one acre of subject property were
developed in an R-1 single-family subdivision, based on past performance in
Orange County, more school-age population would be generated than from the type
of living units proposed on one acre of this development. He remarked it is
all well and good to deny expert testimony from professional traffic consultants
and recite impressive, figures about a project not yet completed,but, in his
opinion, that project,when it plans to expand or develop,should be weighed on
its own merits at that time. He advised that his firm too would like to have a
left turn from the Romneya extension (Medical Center Drive) onto Euclid and also
remarked that he feels there is technology aVailable through timed signals to
anticipate traffic flow which would enable this left turn traffic to be accommo-
dated.
Mr. Martin noted that the density calculations were discussed by the
opposition,and it was stated that density figures included area devoted to open
space. He advised that the open space is provided for the use of those who live
in the development. He stated that with their land use plan they have taken the
74-261
City Hall, Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
useless space usually put into side yards, etc., for a single-family subdivision
and compacted it into a large, pleasant,open area for con~nunal enjoyment.
Mr. Martin contended that it is ridiculous to even suggest that any-
one would make light of the possibility of a child's drowning and stated that
he thinks there should be some way to solve the safety problem. He remarked
that his firm has never suggested a 15-foot deep lake, but that this will be
relatively shallow; i.e., as shallow as is feasible, and commensurate with
keeping the lake free of undesirable growth. Using the Pacific shore line as
an example, however, he pointed out that there is a point which extends beyond
-the reasonableness of protection. He explained that this lake would be safer
than most by virtue of the fact that it will be under observation by the people
who live in the units nearby.
Mr. Martin observed that unfortunately a public hearing takes on a
court room atmosphere;however,in the public hearing process there are no rules
of evidence established so that it is not necessary to prove that what one is
saying is absolutely the truth, and that he believes in his presentation as
the opposition believes in theirs. It is then up to the Council and Planning
Commission to consider all of the evidence and to use the recommendations pre-
sented by those experts appointed to evaluate the various aspects of the project.
Relative to the drainage problem mentioned, Mr. Martin remarked that
there is no way the developer can proceed to construct anything on subject
property unless they can first solve the drainage problem which exists on the
property.
In answer to the Romneya-Medical Center Drive situation, Mr. Martin
noted that essentially the situation is that those developments which exist
on the eastern edge of subject property operate on two cul-de-sacs which is
not a satisfactory situation. To improve the access, his firm is suggesting
in concert with the City that a continuous through street be formed which would
provide alternatives to the existing problem.
Mr. Jim Christiansen was recognized by the Mayor and reiterated that
the property was zoned R-4 in the County and with that designation, they could
have obtained a building permit and built to a density of 36 units per acre,
whereas they choose to be annexed to the City of Anaheim and developed a plan
which brings the density down to 12 units per acre.
Mayor Dutton closed the hearing.
Councilman Thom stated that from the evidence presented, particularly
in relation to traffic, he had reason to believe that E.I.R. No. 113 is not
in compliance with State Guidelines,and he requested that his favorable vote
on said E.I.R. be changed to a "no" vote.
As far as his overall views on the project, Councilman Thom remarked
that he concurs with the proposed uses for the northern portion adjacent to the
freeway, however he stated he was convinced that something should be done to
decrease the overall density and to improve the traffic situation, as well as
the potential drainage problem which was pointed out. He thereupon moved that
Reclassification No. 73-74-36 and General Plan Amendment No. 139 be referred
back to the City Planning Commission for refinement of traffic circulation and
density before any action is taken by the City Council. (There was no second
to this motion.)
Councilman Sneegas remarked that he thought what was being presented
was a concept only, that adequate drainage provisions are written into the
Code and that he felt it is too premature to attempt to solve the traffic prop-
lem at Medical Center Drive and Euclid on this date. He expressed the opinion
that these problem areas will be resolved very satisfactorily if and when the
actual proposal is followed through. He pointed out that many of these prob-
lematic factors will have to be resolved as the property is developed and cannot
74-262
City I~all~ An~.eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30
all be contemplated and settled at this time. He stated that the entire
land use concept is what the Council is concerned with this date and he person-
ally thinks it is a tremendous concept.
Councilman Them requested that the record show'that he is a Board
Member of Martin Luther Hospital, which is an honorary position ~br which he
is not paid. Further that he owns no stock and has no financial interest in
this hospital.
Councilman Stephenson stated that he has faith in the capabilities
of the City of Anaheim Engineering Division to see that any drainage problems
are adequately handled.
Councilman Dutton offered a resolution to approve Reclassification
No. 73-74-36,subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Cormmis-
sion.
Mr. Roberts reported that as a result of some meetings held subsequent
to the Planning Co~nission hearing with regard to this reclassification, it was
determined appropriate to recommend that certain additional conditions be imposed
upon approval of said reclassification. These conditions were outlined by Mr.
Roberts.
Councilman Sneegas questioned the advisability of retaining Condition
No. 11 requiring a median strip on Euclid Street, suggesting this would perhaps
preclude the possibility of a left-turn lane in the future.
Mr. Ed Granzow, Traffic Engineer, outlined the reason behind the
recommendation that a left turn from Medical Center Drive onto Euclid not be
installed at this time and advised that it is felt perhaps much of the traffic
would go south from Medical Center Drive via Romneya to exit at La Plama Avenue.
If it is determined that left-turn signalization is necessaz~, this can be accom-
plished despite the median strip requirement.
P~..SO.LUTION NO, 74R-115: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-115 for
adoption, adopting General Plan-Amendment No. 130 in accordance with Exhibit
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as recommended'by the City Planning Co~ission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVINGAN
AME~T TO THE GENERAL PIANDESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 130.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
COUNCILMEN: Thom
COUNCII~EN: None ·
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-115 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO, 74R-~16: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 74R-116 for
adoption, author, zing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested,subject to the conditions reco~nended by the City Planning
Commission ~mended as follows:
1. That dedication of.all public streets shall be made to the City
of Anaheim in accordance with the submitted Circulation Element amd with the
adopted City of Anaheim Circulation Element.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
o
74 -263
City Hm.!l, AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974,. 1:30 P,M,
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council~ said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
7. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific
plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the PC~
Planned Co~,unity, Zone.
8. That tentative and final tract maps of subject property as appro-
priate shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with
the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets.
10. That the center median in Romneya Drive shall be landscaped in
conformance with a landscaping plan approved by the Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenance.
11. That a perpetual maintenance agreement, acceptable to the City
Attorney's Office, for the maintenance of the Romneya Drive median landscaping
shall be filed and recorded.
12. That a median, to City of Anaheim standards, shall be installed
on Euclid Street from the Riverside Freeway to a point not less than 100 feet
south of Medical Center Drive concurrently with the first phase of development.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
14. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
15. That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as
each parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel,
provided, however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing par-
cels of record and any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council for a
lot split.
16. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop-
erty, Condition Nos. 1, 7, 8, 11, and 14, 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.
17. That Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 13, 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-
M N NO TNAT 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNiCiPAl. COVE REnT,NC ZON N¢ SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(73-74-36 - PC)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
NOES: COUNCII2iEN: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCII2iEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-116 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Dutton left the Council Chambersan4 the Mayor Pro Tem Sneegas
assumed Chairmanship of the meeting. (5:25 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSlFICATION NO~ 73-74-40ANDENVlBD~NTA~ IMPACT REPORT
EXEMPTION STATUS: Submitted by Paul and Elm)me Lohr and Herbert and Eunice Grimn
for a change in zone from R-A to C-1 on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east
of Magnolia Avenue~ together with application for Exemption Status from the
filing of an environmental impact report.
74-264
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
The City Planning Con~uission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-41,
recommended that Reclassification No. 73-74-40 be declared exempt from the
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report and further reco~ended
approval of said reclassification subject to the following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along
Lincoln Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and installation of
all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with
as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting
facilities along Lincoln Avenue 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.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree planting
purposes.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the
Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
8. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
9. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop-
erty, 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 one year
from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
10. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 8, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
11. That the hours of operation for the proposed retail farm produce
market shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., as stipulated to by the petitioner.
12. That the coolers shall be used for processing vegetables only, as
stipulated to by the petitioner.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EXEMPTION STATUS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded
by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council finds that Reclassification No.
73-74-40 will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts described the location of subject property
and advised that it is the only remaining parcel on Lincoln Avenue in that immed-
iate area which is still in the R-A Zone, the property to the east has already
been reclassified to the R-3 Zone and is developed with apartment buildings, and
the property to the west is in the C-1 Zone.
The Applicant is requesting reclassification to the C-1 Zone with the
intended purpose of developing this property as a retail farm produce market.
He advised that the Planning Co~m~ission has reviewed the application and proposal
and has recon~nended said reclassification be approved.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and
satisfied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. John Wells, 4500 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, Agent for the Appli-
cants, advised that they were satisfied with the conditions.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council either
in favor or in opposition to said reclassification; there being no response,
declared the hearing closed.
74-265
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-117: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-117 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF 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.
.(73-74-40 - C-i)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-117 duly passed and
adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECIASSIFICATIONNO, 73-74-42 AND ENVIRO~I/ENTA. L IMPACT REPORT
E~MPTION STATUS: Submitted by Chester H. Chtya for a change in zone from R-1 to
C-I, on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Western Avenue, further des-
cribed as 3169 West Lincoln Avenue, together with notice that the Director of
Development Services Department has determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class II of the City of Anaheim Guide-
lines to the requirements for an E.I.R. and is therefore categorically exempt
from the requirement to file same.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-42,
recommended approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-42, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Lincoln Avenue as re-
quired by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifi-
cations on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2°00 per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for street light-
ing purposes.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree planting
purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit No. 1; provided, however, that the two accessways to Lincoln Avenue
from the subject property shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Traffic Engineer.
6. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop-
erty, Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provi-
sions 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.
7. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, and 5, above-mentioned, shall be com-
plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
8. That Conditional Use Permit Nos. 452 and 552 shall be terminated
upon completion of development of subject property.
ENVIRON~iENTAL IMPACT EXEMPTION STATUS: On motion by Councilman Stephenson,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, the Council ratified the determination of the
Director of Development Services that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class II of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the
requirements for an environmental impa.ct report and is therefore categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact report. MOTION
CARRIED.
74-266
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca.lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:3:0 P.M.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts noted the location of subject property
and advised that the three lots to the west of subject parcel are in the C-1
Zone and those immediately adjacent and to the north and east are in the R-1
Zone.
The Applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to the C-1
Zone as he intends to use subject parcel in conjunction with the three lots
immediately to the west for development of a restaurant and accessory parking
lot.
Mr. Roberts advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval
of Reclassification No. 73-74-42 and that in connection with Condition No. 5
regarding approval of the accessways to Lincoln Avenue by the City Traffic
Engineer, this has already been reviewed by Mr. Granzow who has indicated there
will be no problem with the access proposed.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if the Applicant were present and satisfied
with the conditions reconm.ended by the City Planning Commission.
Ms. Betty M. Franklin, 1303 Temple Hills Drive, Laguna Beach, Agent
for the owner indicated their satisfaction with the conditions set forth°
Mayor Pro Tem Sneegas asked if anyone wished to address the Council,
either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, declared the hearing
closed.
RESOLUTIO~ NO. 74R-118: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-118 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEII~ MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(73-74-42 - C-I)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCII24EN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCII~EN:
Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-118 duly passed and
adopted.
PUBLIC ,HEA~,I~ - RECLASSIFICATION NO~ 73-74-45 AND ENVIRONMENTA~? IMPACT REPORT
EXEMPTION STATUS: Initiated by the City Planning Co~-~ission for a change in zone
from County of Orange A-1 to City of AnaheimR-A, at the southeast corner of
Sunkist Street and Ball Road, submitted together with recommendation that said
reclassification be exempt from the requirement of filing an environmental impact
report.
The City Clerk submitted a letter from Mr. Harry Knisely, 1741 South
Euclid Avenue, dated March 18, 1974, requesting that the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 73-74-45 be continued to April 9, 1974, and heard concur-
rently with three other pending zoning applications regarding subject property,
these being General Plan Amendment No. 131, Environmental Impact Report No. 114,
Reclassification No. 73-74-39 and Variance No. 2581o
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
public hearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-45 was continued to April 9, 1974,
1:30 P.M., to be heard in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No° 131,
E.I.R. Noo 114, Reclassification No. 73-74-39 and Variance No. 2581 MOTION
CARRIED.
74-267
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO, 73-8A: Submitted by Henry B. Wesseln, to abandon
a former Edison Company easement located on the west side of Velare Street,
south of Orange Avenue.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, public
hearing on Abandonment No. 73-8A was continued to March 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.,
to allow time for posting of the property. MOTION CARRIED.
DINNER-DANCING PI/iCE PERMIT: Application filed by Jose Saucedo for Dinner-Dancing
Place Permit at Mitla Mexican Restaurant, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue, from 8:00
p.m. to 1:30 a.m., Friday, Saturday and Sunday, was submitted and granted,
subject to provisions of Chapters 3.28 and 4.16 of the AnaheimMunicipal Code,
as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson,
seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED.
PRIVATE PATROL PERMIT - LANSDELL PROTECTIVE AGENCY, INC,: Application for a Private
Patrol Permit filed by Mr. Robert M. Murphy for permission to conduct security
guard and patrol services, also on-premises guard service at the Anaheim Con-
vention Center, was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapters
3.12 and 4.60 of the AnaheimMunicipal Code, as reco~-~ended by the Chief of
Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley.
MOTION CARRIED.
T~IT1ATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 8080 AND 8081 - EXIENSION OF TIME: Request of Mr. Jeffrey
H. Millet, Millet-King and Associates, 1335 West Valencia Drive, Fullerton,
dated February 8, 1974, was submitted for an extension of time to Tentative
Tract Map Nos. 8080 and 8081, together with report from Development Services
Department recommending that a one-year extension of time be granted,to expire
March 27, 1975, subject to the Petitioner submitting a letter to the City indi-
cating that all of the information contained in E.I.R. No. 100 is still valid
and that no changes have occured to the property or immediate surrounding prop-
erty which would affect the E.I.R.
The City Clerk advised that the Applicant has submitted a letter
dated March 8, 1974, advising that the information in the approved E.I.R. No.
100 is still valid and that no changes have occurred to subject property or
the in~aediate surrounding property which would affect the Envirommental Im-
pact Report.
Also submitted was report from the City Engineer recommending a one-
year extension of time be granted to Tentative Tract Nos. 8080 and 8081, sub-
ject to the following conditions:
1. That Condition No. 7 of subject tracts' approval be revised to
read as follows: That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on
grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all re-
quired off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative.
Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities
will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right of way for off-site
drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall
have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be
borne by the developer) prior to co~nencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ul-
timate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the
ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspec-
tions or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be
made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
2. That dedication of the easements necessary for the construction
of the South Santa Aha River Trunk Sewer through Tentative Tract Nos. 8080,
8081 and 8082 be made to the City of Anaheim within ten days.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
a one-year extension of time was granted to Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8080 and
8081, expiring March 27, 1975, subject to the conditions recoum,ended by the
City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
74-268
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19~ 1974~ 1:50 P.M.
RECIASSIF. ICATI. ON NO. 71-72-18 - REQUEST FOR gXTEltSION OF TIME: Letters from R. C.
Booth, Fairfield Homes, Inc., dated February 6, 1974 and George L. Argyros,
Arnel Development Company, dated February 25, 1974, requesting an extension of
time to complete conditions of approval pursuant to Resolution No. 711{-527 were
submitted. Property is located on the south side of Broadway, between Loara
Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Also submitted were
reports from the City Engineer and Development Services Department reccm-~.,ending
that an extension of time be withheld pending submission and adoption of an
environmental impact report or approval of a .Negative Declaration.
No further action on an extension of time was taken by the City
Council, pending submission and approval of environmental impact report or
Negative Declaration,as recoeanended by Development Services Department.
REQUEST - WOMEn'S DIVISION, ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - MISS ANAHEIM PAGEANT:
Request of Mrs. Bernice Douglas, President, Women's Division, Chamber of Com-
merce and Mrs. Fran Mauck, Chairman, Miss Anaheim Pageant, dated February 8,
1974 for use of the Anaheim Room and certain City properties at the Convention
Center for the Miss Anaheim Pageant on April 23, 1974, was submitted for Council
consideration. Also submitted was report from the Stadium-Convention Center
Director, recommending approval of the use of the Anaheim Room for the Pageant
on April 23, 1974, with rehearsal on Monday, April 22, 1974, on the basis of
"out of pocket expenses" only,should some of the properties required not be
available.
Councilman Pebley moved that the City co-sponsor the 1974Miss Anaheim
Pageant and approve the use of the Anaheim Room of the Convention Center on
April 22 and 23, 1974 for said event, in accordance with the recommendations of
the Stadium-Convention Center Director. Councilman Stephenson seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 8141~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 1347 - WAIVER, LOCATION OF
LOT LINES: Letter from Mr. Robert L. Hezmalhalch, American Housing Guild, dated
February 11, 1974, requesting an exception to Section 17.06.110(b) of the
AnaheimMunicipal Code and waiver of Condition No. 15b imposed on approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1347, relating to location of lot lines, to permit
lot lines to be located other than one foot behind the top of a slope.
Also submitted was report from the City Engineer recommending that
property lines be permitted to be located in slope areas of Tract No. 8141 as
requested.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council approved exception to Section 17.06.110(b) and waiver of Condition
No. 15b imposed on approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1347 and Tentative
Tract No. 8141, thereby allowing lot lines to be located at other than required
locations. MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 8141: Developer, American Housing Guild, tract located on the
north side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Serrano Avenue; containing 72 R-2 zoned
lots.
The City Engineer recommended approval, subject to approval of reques-
ted waiver of grading ordinance provisions (previously considered and approved
above) and reported that said final map conforms substantially with the
tentative map previously approved, that bonds and tract covenant, conditions and
restrictions have been approved by the City Attorney and required fees paid.
On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas moved that
Final Map, Tract No. 8141 be approved. Councilman Stephenson seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers. (5:40 P.M.)
ENCROACRW~EI~T I~IT NO. 73-16E: Submitted by Mr. Arnold D. Furenstein, Euclid Shop-
ping Center, proposing to encroach into a portion of dedicated right-of-way for
the purpose of installation and maintenance of landscaping and sprinkler system
at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Katella Avenue.
74-269
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUIES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
Also submitted was report of the City Engineer recommending approval
of said encroachment permit, subject to applicant removing said landscaping
and sprinklers at no cost to the City upon request of the City.
R~.~S0.LUTION NO. 74R-119: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-119 for
adoption, granting Encroachment Permit No. 73-16E, subject to the recommenda-
tion of the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
TEtriS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROA~T PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH EUCLID
SHOPPING CENTER. (SE Corner Euclid and Katella, 73-16E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-119 duly passed and
adopted.
Councilman Pebley returned to Council Chambers. (5:45 P.M.)
REQUEST - SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - PACIFIC STEI~O: Request for a Special Event Per-
mit submitted by Pacific Stereo, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, to promote and
hold a one-day event in the parking lot at said location on March 23, 1974,
an event comprised of displays of products relating to aerial sports such as
hang gliding, ballooning, sky diving, fixed and rotary wing aviation instruc-
tionand hand-held kites. In addition to displays, three public participation
amusements are proposed - balloon rides, kite flying contest and helicopter
rides.
Also submitted were reports from Development Services Department and
the Chief of Police rec~m~,ending that should Council approve subject request,
the following conditions be imposed:
1. That any proposed activities involving helicopters be approved
by the Chief of Police.
2. That the Applicant and planners of this activity meet with repre-
sentatives of the Anaheim Police Department and comply with special control
requests which will be made with regard to the safe movement of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic, parking, and private security to be provided by the Appli-
cant, as recommended by the Chief of Police.
3. That the Applicant submit proof of liability insurance as speci-
fied in Section 4.02.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
the City Council granted a Special Event Permit for a one-day event to be held
March 23, 1974 to Pacific Stereo, subject to the conditions recc~m~,ended by the
Chief of Police and Development Services Department as set forth above.
MOTION CARRIED.
STATUS REPORT.- PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM REGULATIONS: Mr. S. Dale Stanton, 1509 Harle
Place, addressed the Council and inquired as to the status of the proposed
condominium regulations which he had requested Council to consider seven months
ago. He advised that at that time, he was informed that the formulation of
such regulations would require three months to bring into preliminary form and
six months for final draft. He advised that it is now seven months from the
original request and that he noted building permits are still being issued for
condominiums although no condominium ordinance is in effect.
Mr. Stanton requested that the Council enact a moratorium on all
condominium construction in the City until an ordinance is adopted regulating
same,and further he requested a date be set for consideration of such condomin-
ium regulations.
74-270
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 PtM,
Mr. Ron Thompson reported that originally on October 30, 1973, the
time estimated for preparation of preliminary drafts of regulations for the
control of apartment conversions to condominiums and the criteria for develop-
ment of planned residential developments was three to six months. A progress
report on this project was submitted to the City Council November 27, 1973 at
which time the Council approved in principle the site development criteria to
be utilized as a frame work in preparation of a planned residential development
ordinance. Mr. Thompson advised that the project should be submitted to the
Planning Commission within the next 30 days and would be considered by Council
shortly thereafter.
Planning Supervisor Don McDaniel pointed out that some of the con-
versations held with Mr. Stanton would indicate that his concern is with con-
version from condominiums to rentals and that the proposed ordinance will not
alleviate his concerns in that regard.
Mr. Stanton advised that his major concern is the density of any given
project.
No further action was taken by the City Council at this time.
LETTER AGREEMENT - ANAHEIM HILLS, INC..- NOHL_RA_NCH BOADAND WALNUT CANYON ROAD
STREET LM~kO~ (WORK ORDER NO. 714-A): The City Engineer submitted for Council's
info~mation a letter agreement between the City and Anaheim Hills, Inc., for
extension of Nohl Ranch Road abutting the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to include
the Anaheim Hills, Inc.'s portion of responsibility from the west line of the
golf course to Canyon Rim Road.
The final estimate of Anaheim Hills, Inc.'s share of this project is
$47,125.00 and the letter agreement has been approved by the City Attorney.,
subject to Anaheim Hills, Inc., making advance payment of approximately 25% and
monthly progress payments to the City as the work progresses.
Mr. Maddox pointed out that the. agreement calls for a higher payment
than would be due according to the tabulation of bids taken, and that this pro-
vision is set forth in the letter agreement. The final price for Anaheim Hills,
Inc., will be based on actual quantities used and bids taken. The cost as set
forth is given assuming each and every one of the quantitims remains exactly
alike as estimated, however a variation of some small percentage is expected in
any job.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council received and filed the letter agreement for the Nohl Ranch Road
Street Improvement with Anaheim Hills, Inc. MOTION CARRIED.
RE. SOLUTION NO. 74R-120 - AWARD OF ~DRKORDER NO. 714-A: In accordance with recommen-
dations of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No.
74R-120 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER-
FO~MING ALL NORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: NOHL RANCH ROAD-WALNUT CANYON ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 714-A. (National Western Construction
Company - $148,148.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-120 duly passed and
adopted.
74-271
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-121 - WORK ORDER NO. 707-A: Upon receipt of certification from
the Director of Public Works, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No.
74R-121 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING
THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
AND WATER, AND THE P~RFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY %0 CONSTRUCT AND COM-
PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE WINSTON ROAD STREET
IMPROVEMENT, EAST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 707-A. (Patco)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCII~EN:
Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-121 duly passed and
adopted.
FINAL COMPLETION SUBMITi~D - WORK ORDER NO. 1516: Receipt of certification from
the Director of Public Works was submitted and Councilman Stephenson offered
a resolution for adoption accepting the completion of Anaheim Hills Golf Course
Clubhouse golf cart storage expansion as furnished by the Dick Pebley Construc-
tion Company.
Mayor Pro Tem Sneegas declared said resolution failed to carry by
the following Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
ABSTAINED: COUNCIIM~N: Pebley
ABSENT: COUNCII2~EN: Dutton
Action on acceptance of Work Order No. 1516 was continued one
week for a full Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-122 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution
No. 74R-122 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAREIMACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Jerome Ao Stewart, et al; Jerome
Ao Stewart, et al; Ada I. Higdon; Richard L. & Jean A. Bradford; Leo Co
& Sydelle B. Ward; JED Development, Inc.; Leonard G. Smith; Edwin M. &
Frances A. Denver; Leonard G. Smith)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: cOIrNCIIMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Noo 74R-122 duly passed and
adopted.
PROPOSED ABANDONMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 74R-123: Councilman Sneega$ offered Resolu-
tion No. 74R-123 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING
THEREON° (No. 73-7A; April 9, 1974, 1:30 P.M.; Old Santa Ana Canyon
Road, west of Imperial Highway)
74-272
City Hail, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M~
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-123 duly passed and
adopted.
COURT OPINION RE: ORANGE UNIFIED SC~0OL DISTRICT, ET AL, VERSUS CITY OF ANA_W!~_.IM
(E.I.R. NO, 97): City Attorney Alan Watts reported on the opinion rendered by
Superior Court Judge Lester Van Tatenhove in the matters pertaining to EoI.R.
No. 97 under litigation. He advised that the Judge's opinion was favorable to
the City on the four major contentions, namely: That the petitioners had not
exhausted administrative remedies; that the law does not in any event require
educational facilities to be discussed in the E.I.R., however this report did
adequately discuss this aspect; that the action brought under the provisions
of the Clean Air Act was not appropriate. The Judge therefore denied the Writ
of Mandate and also the injunction.
PURCHASE OF MATERIAL - 53~175 POUNDS ACSR TRANSMISSION WIRE: The Assistant City
Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of 53,175 pounds
of 653.9 ACSR transmission wire for the Electrical Division as follows, and
because certain of the bids received did not meet specification~ certain bids
were incomplete, and further because of favorable delivery dates, he recommended
that the Westinghouse Electric Supply Company bid be accepted:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co., Anaheim
(delivery date, 8 weeks)
General Electric Supply Co., Anaheim (Alcan)
(Incomplete bid)
Maydwell-Hartzell, Los Angeles
General Electric Supply Co., Anaheim (Southwire)
(delivery date, last quarter of 1975)
Graybar Electric Co., Anaheim
$50,583.69
17,602.33
NO QUOTE
44,375.31
NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply Company was accepted and purchase autho-
rized in the amount of $50,583.69, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FOUR ~-TON PICKUP TRUCKS: The Assistant City Manager reported
on informal bids received for the purchase of four h-ton pickup trucks, two for
Engineering Division and two for the Electrical Division, as follows and recom-
mended acceptance of the low bid (authorization for purchase of said trucks was
previously rescinded by Council because of dealer's failure to meet City speci-
fications):
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
Santa Aha Dodge, Santa Ana
Woods, G.M.C., Anaheim
McCoy Ford, Anaheim
$13,172.88
13,591.20
' 13,647.98
On motion by CouncilMan Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
the Iow bid of Santa Arm Dodge was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount
of $13,172.88, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
LEASE OF EqUIPMeNT - ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION PROGRAM: Mr. Robert Davis.
submitted a list of equipment proposed to be leased under the Security Pacific
National Bank ~ease No. 2. The total cost of the items listed is $105,952.28,
including tax. There was further submitted a recommendation from the Finance
Director that Council approve the list and advising that such approval will leave
a balance under the lease of $66,678.58.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council approved the list of items submitted to be purchased under
Lease No. 2, totaling $105,952.28, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
74-273
C...ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by the
City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. Claim submitted by the Southern California Gas Company for damage
sustained to gas line at Avenido Bernardo, purportedly as a result of negli-
gence of the City of Anaheim, on or about January 18, 1974.
b. Claim submitted by Rose Berenice Deneau for damage sustained to
laundry (rust stains) purportedly as a result of flushing of City's lines
during test, on or about February 18, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT - PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION HEARINGS - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATIONS: On
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the report sub-
mitted by the City Engineer dated March 5, 1974, regarding Public Utilities
Commission hearings on railroad grade separations, per Commission Case No. 9663,
dated February 13, 1974, was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. City of Newport Beach - Resolution No. 8205 - Urging the Orange
County Transit District to provide localized passenger service in conjunction
with a rapid or mass transit system, and encouraging other cities in Orange
County to support the establishment of localized transit service.
b. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Application of Greyhound
Lines - West, Division of Greyhound Lines, Inc., for an order authorizing a
state-wide increase in intrastate passenger fares.
c. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - February 27, 1974.
d. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - February 11, 1974.
e. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of January and
February, 1974:
Water Division
Customer Service Division
Building Division
(January)
(February)
(February)
MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE - SUPERVISOR RALPH Bo CLARK - MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER IN
ANAHEIM: Correspondence from Ralph B. Clark, Supervisor, suggesting a special study
be performed of a Multi-Modal Transportation Center in Anaheim's commercial-
recreational area; said study to be financed jointly by the City of Anaheim,
the Orange County Transit District and the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis-
tration, was submitted.
Mr. Davis advised that if Council wants the Transportation Corridor
and Multi-Modal Center to be seriously considered and physically included in
the future transportation network, then the City should diligently pursue the
offer which has been made by Supervisor Clark.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the City Council authorized the staff to investigate and pursue the offer as
made by Supervisor Clark that a special study be jointly performed of a Multi-
Modal Tramsportation Center in Anaheim's commercial-recreational area and to
report back with a proposal for such joint study. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO, 3275: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3275 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (60) - C-R)
Roll Call Vote:
74-274
City. Mall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3275 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3276: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3276 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANABEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-35 - R-A)
ORDINANCE NO. 3277: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3277 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (9) - M-i)
ORDINANCE NO. 3278: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3278 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (10) - M-I)
ORDINANCE NO, 3279: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3279 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-24 - RS-5000)
PROPOSED URGENCY ORDINANCE - MOTOR FUEL PRICE SIGNS: (Continued from the meeting of
March 12, 1974) By general consent, the City Council held the consideration
and/or adoption of the proposed urgency ordinance regarding automobile fuel
price signs over for a full Council.
OPINION REGARDING DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION - USE OF ANAW~.IM STADIUM BY TOMMY WALKER
FOR THE JULY 4THFIREWORKS SHOW: City Attorney Alan R. Watts submitted a memorandum
dated March 15, 1974, containing his opinion relative to the request made at
the meeting of March 12, 1974, by attorneys for Tommy Walker Productions that
the City enter into an agreement with To~-~y Walker productions in order to enable
Mr. Walker to file for a Declaratory Relief action. Succinctly, Mr. Watts'
recommendation was that the Council not take such an action.
Mr. H. H. Hanson, 1221 Athena Way, requested a copy of the City
Attorney's opinion, noting that from the previous meeting, preliminary indica-
tions were that the City Attorney's recommendation would be favorable. (A copy
of the memorandum was given to him.) Mr. Hanson noted that in the past, the
City Council members have expressed interest and desire in having the fireworks
show at the Anaheim Stadium produced by Tommy Walker, if this is at all possible.
This being the case, Mr. Hanson requested that the Council direct the City
Attorney to prepare an agreement between the City of Anaheim and Tommy Walker
Productions for the staging of this event, not to supersede or violate anyone's
rights, but in fact to be consistent with the rights of all concerned.
Mr. Hanson contended that taking into consideration the number of years
it takes to build up an event and the money involved; the quality of the show
itself and the amount of revenue the City would realize, if the Council wishes
at this time to indicate that they would like to have this particular event in
the Anaheim Stadium every July 4th, they should be able to make that decision.
He remarked that Tommy Walker Productions does not want to be in the Stadium
illegally, nor do they want to ask the Council to be placed in the position
of breaking the law or violating the terms and commitments of the agreement with
the California Angels.
Councilman Pebley pointed out to Mr. Hanson that if he would read the
opinion rendered by the City Attorney, it clearly indicates that the Council
cannot make such commitments years in advance.
Mr. Hanson stated that the only commitment he is asking for is for
that agreement initially made with Mr. Walker which is subject to the prior
rights of the California Angels.
74-27.5
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974~ 1:30 P,M.
Councilman Pebley remarked he would not be in favor of co~m, iting
future Councils to such an agreement beyond 1976; that some other group may
want to conduct a fireworks show on the 4th of July subsequent to 1976 and
this decision should be made by the Council at that time.
Mr. Hanson urged that the Council not hold back any favorable decision
on that basis, noting that To~,~y Walker Productions has spent considerable time
and money in building an event for the citizens of Anaheim.
Mr. Watts s~rized his opinion fort he Council at the request of
Councilman Stephenson as being a rather simple question, i.e., what does Section
3A of the agreement between the City of Anaheim and the California Angels say?
He believes it clearly says that for each and every year of that agreement,
the Angels will, no later than February 21st of each year provide to the City
their home baseball schedule and in accordance with that schedule they have the
right to use the Anaheim Stadium on those dates at the times they select.
Therefore, he remarked he finds it difficult to believe that someone could con-
strue this to mean that the City could in advance of each year, preconnnit to
some other event.
Mr. Watts advised that he feels this is the only correct interpre-
tation, and this being the case, there is no way to commit any other event
during the baseball season that would not be in breach of this contract.
Councilman Sneegas asked Mr~ Hanson if what he is after is a commit-
ment for those years which the Angels will not be using the Stadium on Jul~ 4tho
Mr. Hanson replied that Councilman Sneegas' remark was partially
correct, but further that he does not wish to make the decision nor does he
wish the Council to be in the position of making the decision as to whether or
not this is the correct legal interpretation. He advised that they have a
legal interpretation which differs from the City Attorney's and their interpre-
tation could also be wrong; that what he is really requesting is an opportunity
to straighten the matter out and legally to determine what their rights are.
He reiterated that they do not wish in any manner to place the Council in breach
of the Angels' contract.
Councilman Pebley advised that this is the reason that he will not
vote to extend the agreement or be a party to any commitment with To,ny Walker
Productions at this time.
Councilman Thom remarked that the crux of the issue is whether or
not two events can be conducted on the same day.
Mr. Watts replied that the City has the ability to schedule another
event on the same day as a baseball game, however the Angels have the prior
right to select the time of day at which they will play their game. Specifi-
cally, he referred to Section 3D entitled "Time of Game" which states that
the lessee (the Angels) shall have the right to designate the time of day at
which all games playable hereinunder are to be played, provided, however as
to dates on which another event has already been scheduled for same in a manner
consistent with the lessee's rights. That phrase means that after the initial
schedule is submitted each year, the City has the right to rent the Stadium
consistent with other provisions of the agreement for some other event, if the
Angels then want to change the time of one of their previously scheduled games
after this occurs, then they have a problem.
Councilman Sneegas r~narked that he felt the contract agreement as
outlined by Mr. Watts does reflect the intent of the Council at the time it
was drawn up. He remarked that he favored, if the Angels are not at home, the
Tommy Walker Productions to put on the fireworks show on the 4th of July, how-
ever if the Angels are at home and do wish to produce a fireworks show in con-
junction with their baseball game, then it is their right.
!
74-276
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19m 1974, 1:30 P.M~
Mr. Richard Curran, Attorney for Tou~y Walker Productions, asked the
Council whether his understanding is correct that there is indeed an agreement
with Ton~ny Walker Productions which extends through 1976.
Mr. Watts replied that in 1970 a letter from Tommy Walker was submitted
to and approved by-City Council, together with a recommendation from Stadium-
Convention: Director Tom Liegler. If one wants to characterize that as an agree-
ment, so be it, however he does not. He summarized that what the Council has
stated is that in the event the Angels are not in town on July 4th, then Tommy
Walker Productions has to be given the next opportunity to use the Stadium for
this particular event on this particular day, through the year 1976.
Councilman Pebley felt that the Council should not commit future
dates at the Stadium since this might result in loss of revenue; he was of the
opinion that the Council should accept the Stadium-Convention Center Director's
recommendation and lease the Stadium for those events to that organization which
will bring in the greatest revenue for the City. He felt it is incumbent on
future Councils to make the decision on these matters beyond 1976.
Mr. Curran remarked that independent from his current position repre-
senting Tommy Walker Productions, as an Anaheim resident, he felt that the issue
with respect to the Angels' rights should be resolved so as to prevent the loss
of other potential tenants at the Stadium. He remarked that as he understands
Mr. Watts' opinion, the lease agreement with the Angels provides that the City
is not in any position prior to February 21 of any year to enter into any rela-
tionship for the Stadium during the baseball season.
Mr. Watts indicated this to be correct.
Councilman Pebley pointed out that the Angels have graciously con-
ceded to allow Tc~m~y Walker Productions the option to use the Anaheim Stadium
on July 4, 1976 for the purpose of presenting a fireworks display.
Councilman Thom stated that no legal agreement or commitment to this
effect has been completed.
Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center Director, clarified that
in addition to the letter "agreement" referred to by Mr. Walker's Attorneys,
it is necessary to draw up an additional contract for each specific event. The
first event contract with Tommy Walker Productions contained rate structures
which are not used any more. He advised that an event contract for the 4th of
July 1976 fireworks Show will be completed.
Councilman Pebley asked whether Mr. Liegler and Mr. Watts could legally
draw up such a contract with the relinquishments'submitted by the Angels.
Mr. Watts replied that he would prefer to have further documentation
prior to preparing such an event contract.
By general consent, the City Council directed the City Attorney to
obtain from the California Angels adequate documentation of their intent to
relinquish their right to use of the Anaheim Stadium for an evening game on
July 4, 1976, and upon receipt of same, to draw up a contract with Tommy Walker
Productions for use of the Anaheim Stadium on this particular night for the
production of a fireworks display show.
Mr. Curran asked whether any action will be taken this date regarding
their request made at the meeting of March 12, 1974 and in a letter dated
March 14, 1974, asking for ratification and extension of their contract for an
additional seven years.
The Council indicated they would prefer to consider such action with a
full Council and following receipt of recommendation from the Stadium-Convention
Center Director.
74-277
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTE~ S - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
Mr. Curran asked whether any action will be taken regarding the 4th
of July 1976 fireworks show and Councilman Sneegas outlined the action which
has already been taken, i.e., that upon receipt of adequate and approPriate
documentation from the California Angels, the City Attorney will prepare a
contract for the 1976 event with Tommy Walker Productions.
Mr. Curran noted that his position is that if Council does desire
Tommy Walker Productions to conduct these fireworks shows, that they indicate
this and then allow the attorneys to negotiate and determine if there is a way
this could legally be accomplished.
Councilman Pebley advised that he would prefer, the quality of the
fireworks displays being equal, to use a bidding technique , and again remarked
he would not favor this Council committing the Stadium for years subsequent
to 1976.
In answer to further questioning by Mr. Curran, Councilman Sneegas
advised that the Council cannot make any further commitments to Tommy Walker
Productions on this date.
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT - RINGLING BROS. CONVENTION CENTER CONTRACT: Request from the
Stadium-Convention Center Director for authorization to sign consent to the
assignment of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey combined shows rights under the
Convention Center contract to the Gulf Oil Corporation, was approved, on motion
by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-124 - AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA DENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT: Mr. Tom
Tyre of the City Personnel Department, explained that amendment to the original
agreement with the California Dental Service is necessary to include Police
personnel in the City's group insurance plan as well as to add a mechanism for
arbitration of disputes which may arise between the City and the California
Dental Service. This dispute arbitration method has been approved by the City
Attorney's Office and is inserted because such mechanisms in the original con-
tract were removed by the City Attorney's Office when the contract was origin-
ally drawn up.
Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-124 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF T~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CALIFORNIA
DENTAL SERVICE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-124 duly passed and
adopted.
WITHDI~.W~L F~0MP~BL~C AGENCIES DATA SyS~I~S (PADS): Rec~muendation from Research
and Budget Division regarding the City's withdrawal from PADS, was submitted.
The recommendation is made on the basis that the City is now working with
Fmnicipal Data Systems on a cost-sharing Joint facility basis, and it is
anticipated that this arrangement will satisfy the City's needs for flexi-
bility and cost savings in data processing operations, therefore participation
in PADS should be terminated.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council authorized the draft letter withdrawing from PADS, in accordance
with Paragraph XVIA of the PADS bylaws, effective June 30, 1974, to be prepared
for the Mayor's signature. MOTION CARRIED.
74-278
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Y.M.C.A. GOOD FRIDAY BREAKFAST - WAIVER OF PARKING FEES: On motion by Councilman
Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council authorizedvaiver
of the parking fees at the ArmheimConvention Center for the Annual Good
Friday Breakfast to be held by the Y.M.C.A. in the Anahetm Room, April 12,
1974. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURltME~T: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:30 P.M.
City Clerk
City Hall, Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIIREN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCIIMEN: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Fattens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
FlAG SALIlTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT - CALIFORNIA ANGELS: A Resolution of Support for the
California Angels on the occasion of the opening of the 9th baseball
season in Anaheim Stadium on April 9, 1974, was unanimously adopted
by the City Council.
CERTIFICATe.. OF APPRECIATION - DAVID A. PEELER, PARKS AND RECRFATION COMMISSION:
A Certificate of Appreciation in recognition of years of dedicated
service rendered by David A. Peeler, immediate past Chairman of the
Parks and Recreation Commission, from January 1971 to February 1974,
was presented to Mr. Peeler on behalf of the Council by Mayor Dutton.
MINUI~S: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held February 26, 1974,
were approved on motion by Councilman Them, seconded by Councilman Sneegas.
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 reading 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 T~ CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $2,734,299.41, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 73-8A: Public hearing was scheduled on
proposed abandonment of a former Edison Company easement, located on the west
side of Velare Street, south of Orange Avenue, on March 19, 1974, pursuant to