1974/04/23 74-385
CitV Hall, Anaheim, CalifornSa- COUNCIL MINUTES .- April 23,. 19,74, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council met in Adjourned Regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (entered at 11:00 A.M.), Pebley
and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Cano, Cotler, Leo McDaniel, and Morris
ABSENT: COI~(ISSIONERS: Wallace
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. ~hrdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm E. Slaughter
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Fattens
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G. Orsborn
ASSISTANT DEVELOP~NT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
FINANCE DIRECTOR: 1~ . R. Ringer
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don E. McDaniel
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Christian Hogenbirk
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and explained the put.pose
of this meetingwas to meet with the Community Redevelopment
Co-.-is s ion.
City Manager Keith A. Murdoch advised the Redevelopment Co~nission
requested this Joint meeting in order to explore the direction the present
Council wishes to .follow and to discuss procedural matters. One of the
major item- of concern to the Commission, he advised, is what Council's in-
terest is in an aggressive approach to pursuing redevelopment.
Mr. Murdoch stated they have recruited unsuccessfully for a' person
to take the responsibility required for the redevelopment project proposed
and advised if it is the intent of Council to pursue redevelopment, they will
again recruit through other recruitment alternatives.
Mayor Thom requested comments from the Community Redevelopment
Commission.
James Morris, Chairman of the fmmmunity Redevelopment Coam~ssion,
expressed the opinion that he felt the Commission has done a fine job to
date, however, to proceed further, direction from the Council is needed.
Co~aissioner Morris pointed out they are lacking one member on the Commission
due to the resignation of Mr. Gaylen Compton and advised they are anxious to .
have the vacancy filled as soon as possible.
Commissioner Morris advised that the Redevelopment Commission's
direction has been to move toward redevelopment, concentrating its efforts
primarily toward the central core of the project (downtown Anaheim). He
related the Connission's recent recommendation to the Agency of a small
project in the Northeast Industrial area involving a Flood Control Channel
wherein an $80,000 expenditure on the part of the Agency would be required,
$20,000 of which would be i~nediately returned by the developer; and that
when the developer proceeded with an approximate $500,000 building project
on the property, this would result/man increment tax increase of $50,000
per year to the Agency. Additionally, adjacent developing projects would
pay their proportionate share of the Channel construction. By encouraging
development in the Project "Alpha "area, an increment tax increase would
result in a sufficient cash flow which would support a bonding program
whereby monies could be spent to rejuvenate the do~nto~m area.
In conclusion, Commissioner Morris voiced the opinion that the
members of the Co-m,nityltedevelopment Co~ission are eager to proceed with
the actual redevelopment project in light of the fact that studies and.plans
have been completed, however, they desire at this time to have definite
Council direction.
Mayor Thom queried whether or not the Co--,dssion m~-mhers felt a
necessity for broader powers, such as those now empowered to the Anahe/m
Redevelopment Agency, in order to accomplish redevelopment goals.
74-386
City Ha~l, A~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1974, 10;00 A,M,
Co-~-issioner Morris replied that although it is sometimes cumbersome
to accomplish Commission objectives under the present organizational structure,
he did not feel it currently necessary to have additional powers.
Of prime importance to the Commission, Co~issioner Morris advised,
is if it beccme~q absolutely necessary to use ~mtnent Domain proceedings in
order to establish or complete a specific project within the redevelopment
area, would Council exercise that method to accomplish that project. He ex-
plained that without the use of Eminent Domain proceedings, a specific project
could be delayed by one property owner indefinitely.
Councilman Pebley voiced the opinion he favors redevelopment,
however~ he strongly opposes the Agency paying a property owner in the redevelop-
ment project double the price on the open market simply because that property
owner "holds out".
Co-,-tssioner Morris agreed with Councilman Pebley and advised that
exercise of Eminent Domain proceedings would eliminate these "hold-outs".
He explained when a "hob-out situation arises, an independent appraiser is
hired by the Agency and/or property owner to appraise the property to determine
the current Market Value and thus establish a reasonable selling price for the
property.
In answer to Councilman Pebley's remark concerning the recent proposed
sale of the property located on the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and
Lincoln Avenue, C~issioner Morris advised that after considerable discussion,
the Co~tssion decided it would be unwise to purchase that property at that
time. He noted that purchase of the property by the Agency would have removed
the property from the tax roll, thereby reducing the tax increments necessary
for the redevelopment project.
Mayor Thom stated that inasmuch as Eminent Domain proceedings are
really dependent upon the type of project involved, noting that only some
projects would merit such action, he favored use of Eminent Domain proceedings
if it were the only way to accomplish a specific redevelopment project which
benefits the com~nity.
Councilwoman I<aywood concurred with the Mayor, however, she is
concerned with whether or not the property owner who has lived for a n,~,her
of years on his property and who is "forced" to relocate because of a project,
is protected.
Commissioner Cotler referred to the joint City Council-Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and Com,-,nity Redevelopment Co-,-ission public hearing
wherein the redevelopment legal counsel explained in detail processes through
which the City, its citizens and property owners are protected by law, and
suggested a revie~ of same for the benefit of the new Council and Commission
members.
Co~[ssioner Morris pointed out the Commission makes recommendations
to the Agency who in turn makes the decisions on any proposed project within
the redevelopment area limits, and regardless of whether Council grants current
Agency powers to the Commission, the City Council, by law~ is ultimately
responsible for final decision on any redevelopment project.
Mayor Thom commented he too felt safeguards are included in the law
governing redevelopment and reiterated that the Agency would use Eminent Domain
proceedings only when a project was of a substantial stature and warranted it,
that is, the project was for a specific use by a specific developer.
Co~nissioner Morris pointed out that prior to finding a developer
for any project, it is mandatory to secure a Redevelopment Director who is
highly unique and very knowledgeable in the building and financing fields and
who is a first-class salesman. He noted that if the proposed civic center
project does, in fact, materialize, property within the Commission's Juris-
diction will become available, and they will desire to proceed i-w,-diately
74-387
City ~all. An_~_heim. Californ!=_ - COU~IL HINUf~S - April 23.: 1974. 10:00 A.M.
with the redevelopment program, however, without a competent Director, it
will be impossible. With the Civic Center ac,ins as a catalyst for redevelop-
men,, Cou~tssioner~rris noted, the City will need a Director to "sell" the
package to a developer.
The Hayor asked the City ltanager how he thought the City might
again recruit for a Redevelopment Director, meeting the qualifications
requested by the Cow~nission.
~Lr. Nurdoch replied that he felt the biggest.obstacle in securing.
a Director was finding someone who is reasonably familiar with the technical
redevelopment activities, primarily though, finding so, eons ~ho is capable of
putting co=~.rcial and residential packages together and "sellin~" the= to
a developer. He added this is the manner in vhich to build in the buying
power recommended by Economic Research Associates in 'the early 1960's. Hr.
Hurdoch stated he will meet ~ith the Personnel Director to explore other
possibilities of recruit~nent for a Redevelopment Director since it is
obviou~ly ~vparent the normal city recruiting procedure is ineffective in
this situation.
Councilman Pebley suggested contacting a person vho has demon-
strated and proven his ability in redevelopment projects, such as the man
who vas responsible for redevelopment in Fresno, and maktns him an offer of
employment. He stated he knew the man would de~and a higher salary, however,
he also recognized that the City would realize the return on the first
business transaction with a developer.
Co~issioner N~rris agreed rich Council~an Pebley, however, he
felt there is a possibility of conflict in the organizational structure of
the City if a Redevelopment Director is hired at a salary higher than most
city officials.
The Hayor asked if perhaps more Cotission autonomy vas the answer
to the problem of securing a Director, to which Co~tssioner~forris replied
he did not know; that the Co~ission vas interested in getting the best man
to produce maximumbeneficial results.
City ~tanager ~urdoch pointedout that placing the Redevelopment
Director in the City organization does have a limitation on the salary range.
He advised that staff has investigated what other cities are paying and con-
cluded the $20,000 to $25,000 salary range could be integrated into the
present organization. He stated it is necessary at this time to know Council's
position on salary limitations. Since recruitment vas unsuccessful, based
upon the qualifications reqUired, Hr. Hurdoch felt a change in the organiza-
tional structure vas necessary, however, in his opinion, he did not believe
complete separation of the position from the City at this point in time vas
necessary.
Hr. Hurdoch further poin~doutthat redevelopment and co~m~nity
activities are inseparable because redevelopment activities have strong
potential of bettering the co~euni~y if those activities are in cop~ort with
the other goals of the co~mity. Therefore, in his opinion, Hr. Hurdoch
stated he felt a very important linkage between the Agency, the Redevelopment
Director and City activities must be retained.
C°~issioner Leo expressed the opinion the only way to obtain the
most qualified person for Director was to seek him out and make him an offer.
In answer to Councilwoman Kayvoodts question, Development Services
Director Alan Orsborn replied that names of potential candidates for Redevelop-
men, Director had been solicited from Hr. Gene Jacobs, legal counsel,.and from
cities who presently employ such a person.
Hayor Thom asked for the opinions of the other Coe~tssionmembers.
Comissioner Gene HcDaniel expressed the opinion that the salary
and the organizational structure were the t~o most vital factors in negotiat-
ing for a Redevelopment Director.
Coemiseioner Joe Cans stated he felt it vas t~perative they select
the righ~ person,however, it should be acco~plished i~diately in order to
implement the redevelopment program in the very near future.
74-388
? :: ~omissiom~r Cotler a~re~ wi~h th~ other C~ssione~s, and
a~!ai~lty, f~ssed the opint~ that he felt it was i~vi~a.ble ~hat ~.
~-th~ C~~y~:~elo~ut C~sston ~uld have to be s:e~ up ~ the ~ncy
when redevelop~nt projects of any great ~gnitude ~re pro~sed in order
to acc~plish same.
= : ~seion~ ~is offered the su~es~ion of see~n~ ~ Direc~o'r
in fields other than redevelop~nt, such as those of real estate ~d fiance.
~e Oity ~n~er a~ with C~ssto~r ~rris and concluded
...f~ thedtsc~si~ that ~e Co=il, C~tssion and S~a~f are in ~ral
a~c ~n ~dir~cion ~d r~val of s~ of the c~Craints in ~he~ re~
cmic~nt /or a Dirac~or. He stated ~hey will scar= recmi~ma~ a~ain,
h~ver, ~e~r ef/orts this tim viii not be li~ted to the redevel~=
~, ~rdoch s=ated, h~in8 laid ~he ~ro~rk for selection of a
Redevel~n~ Directo~ it ~uld n~. ~ in order for Co~cil ~o, dete~
the "product" the Director will be selling; that perhaps the first s~tep ~uld
he.to =e-~mine a~ update, if necessary, the etonic feasibility study pre-
p~ed by ~o~c Research Associates in the '60's, pointinE out that their r~
c~ndeti~s ~re favorably received at that ti~. He noted that ~nsistently
in~,the ~n~e~i-~ for a ~rector, candidates e~hasized it was essential to
their abtlLty to perform to have a current economic feasibility stu~ or analysts.
Comissioner Morris said he felt the area s~udied by Econ~c Research
As~ciaZea had ~ cha~ appreciably since that Ci~ a~ cha~: the ~hree areas
of pri~ conc~n still r~in the s~, that of residential, ~rcial and
r~il red~velo~nt. He advised it is the C~issia~s belief C~C c~rcial
redevelop~nC (office s~ruccures) should star~ first since it can supp~
self, ~ereas retail and residential redevelopment tend to support each other,
~.~eby r~uirint bo=h Co be redeveloped si~lcaneously.
. ~yor Th~ c~curr~ ~th the City ~na~er and expressed the ~tnion
that an update of ~he Econ~ic Research Msociat~ study Co dete~ the
current econ~c ~rket is crucial because econ~ic feasibility is a~ool the
~d:eve~~ Director will need ~o "sell" projects.
~. ~vet~n~ Services Direct~ ~sborn interjected the tho~ht of
senti~, a mr~tini potential a~lysis, rather than an etonic stay, ~tch
:~ld ~l~re :a wide spectr~ of mr~tint ~s and ~ich could be ~ed as a
t~l EoF ~ ~velo~ent Director to attract developers. He ~ph~-tzed that
in,.order for the Director ~o interes~ any developer ~ probl~ of insre, ss and
:,~r~s Zo the c~tral core area would ~ ~o be resolved.
Council~n Se~our entered the ~etin~. (11:00 A.M.).
~ The City ~.~er ~inted ~out chat such ~r~ti~ deficiencies ~uld
sur/ace~!~.a ~ketin~ a~l~sis ~. thus recoEniz~, steps ~o r~y the. de-
:ficiencL~ ~ould ~ tarn acco~in~1y. Further, he i~icated tha~ a: ~n~ial
~i~E ~alysis could be acc~tished while recruit~nC for a ~r~c~:
~e ~yor briefed Co~cilmn Se~ur on ~he C~isston's reques~ for
a ~[~t ~ ~ci!~ at chat time when a r~evelo~nt proJec~ of subs=an-
t~l s=~ure ~md ~snSt~e req~res ~he use of ~inen2 ~in pr~i~$., to
assemble the project, would Council exercise that tool (~tnent ~in)
ne~ea~i:~,d, ~he C~:ssion is r~uest$~ direction in the recruicmen~ of
a ~e~l~t Director,
Coun=il~n Se~ur advis~ he woul~ su~rt the. use of ~inent~
proeeedlngs only when necessa~ and was agreeable to ~loyln8 a Director
trade if b~ing p~ers were built in with '~dd~to~.:l::=esi~n~!~l
activity. He e~lained that the reportj however~ also pointed out that the
74-389
City Hall. Anaheim, CaliforqSa - COUNC~L MI~JTES - April 23, 197%, 10;00 A,N,
consolidated into more efficient utilization; it was at that point that
the Gruen study was initiated to select alternatives.
CommissiOner Cotler stated he felt it was very important to re-
member the entire redevelopment program must be integrated, that it was not
a piece-meal operation. He voiced the opinion that all the studies indicate
the program could be accomplished and did not feel another study would
validate that end result. Mr. Cotler felt what was needed now was a viable
plan to equip the new Directo£ with, so that he could entice developers and
defend his position, if necessary, when the program cou~ences.
The Mayor asked the Commission if there were any diverging'opinions
from that expressed by Commissioner Cotler.
Commissioner Morris agreed with the premises expressed by Mr.
Cotler, however felt the plan must be flexible.
Co-~tssioner Leo generally agreed with Mr. Cotler. He indicated
that a balance of the retail, commercial and residentialredevelopment must
be determined first and that the plan must be flexible.
Co_-~__fssioner Cotler clarified his statements; he meant a balanced,
flexible plan.
Co~-~ssioner McDaniel felt the Redevelopment Director was the key;
that he would also act in the capacity as an advisor on the total redevelop-
ment project and would make recon~nendations to formulate an effective plan.
Councilman Seymour offered as constructive criticism his belief
that the Cor~-~ssion needs the powers presently vested with the Agency, however,
until he sees definite progress toward accomplishing Con~ission goals, i.e.,
a Director, current market feasibility, plan, etc., he would not favor re[in-
guishing those powers to the Commission.
Commissioner Cano concurred with Councilman Seymour and stated he
felt now was the time to take positive steps to fully implement the redevelop-
ment program.
City Manager Keith Murdoch emphasized a specific, flexible plan has
been prepared showing reco-w-ended traffic circulation patterns and the areas
to be developed as multiple family units (to build in the needed buying power),
cos=nercial-office building and retail areas.
Commissioner Morris responded that the Con~nission is in general
agreement with the concepts of the Gruen Report for the downtown core area,
however there are a few features, such as the overpass reconmended on West
Street, which the Conmission feels are unnecessary. He further added the
Cosxnission feels the report should be used as a basis for the redevelopment
program but not necessarily as a rigid plan.
The City Manager pointed out the Gruen Report was conceptual in
nature and modifications were expected to be made as the redevelopment
program progressed. He indicated in his opinion the Gruen Report today
still has a lot of merit and perhaps the Co-=-ission should review the con-
cepts of the Report and make any recommendation they feel necessary to
implement the redevelopment program.
He further pointed out he felt the Gruen Report was a tool the
Director could present to a private developer who, in turn, would sug§est
modifications necessary for him to become financially committed in a speci-
fic project. Mr. Murdoch stated he felt the Report was a starting point.
Councihnan Seymour asked if either the Gruen Report or the
Economic Research Associates Report advocated the feasibility of attemptins
to create a mode of transportation to generate the tourist traffic from
the Disneyland area into the downtown area if a shopping center was built
there, noting the cable cars used to transport tourists to The Wharf and
Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco.
74-390
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1974, !0:00 A,M,
Co~mtssioner Morris answered it would take a very unique shopping
experience to lure the tourist away from the Disneyland area, such as a "city
of tomorrow".
Councilman Seymour then asked what the possibility of Federal
Funding would be for a unique mass transit system.
The City Manager advised that any mass transit proposal must be
coordinated with plans developed and approved by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) and therefore must be complimentary to the
Orange County Transit District Transportation Plan in order to'receive
Federal Funding for an intra-city transportation system.
Mr. Murdoch stated he felt the first step in implementing the
redevelopment program was to "dust" off the Gruen Report, and Councilman
Seymour added any areas that need updating could then be determined.
Mayor Thom asked if the Commission had any other items they wished
to discuss, to which Commissioner Morris replied no, noting they had re-
ceived the direction they needed relative to ~minent Domain proceedings and
recruitment of a Director and from there, they could proceed with "selling"
the redevelopment program to developers.
Mayor Thom thanked the Commission and advised that the current
vacancy would be filled within the next two weeks.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded
the mo~ion. F~)TION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:45 A.M.
Signed
Deputy ~fty Clerk
74-391
,City .Nail, Anaheim,. Califotmt~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23,, .19154, 1:30
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in reguhr session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: Kay, od, Se3nnour, Pebley (entered the meeting at
1:35 P.M.), Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: -GOUNCIL HE,BERg: None
PRESENT: CITY NANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
AI~INISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. l~mtts
CITY CLERK: Alona lt. Fattens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Naddoz
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPHENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
STADIUH CONVENTION CENTER DIRECTOR: Tan Leigler
Mayor Thom called the meetin~ to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Jim Green of the Bethel Baptist Church Save the Invo-
ca t ion.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman John Seymour led the assenbly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
FROCLANATIONS: The following proclamations were issued'by Nayor Thom and
. unanimously approved by the City Council:
"Cultural Arts Month In' Anaheim" - Nay, 1974
~tRealtor Week" = April 21 through 27, 1974
HI~s: Approval of the minutes of regular meetings held Narch 19 and 26, April
2, 9 and 16, and adjourned regular meetin~sof April 17 and 23, 1974, vas
deferred one week.
IIqIV~,R OF READING = ORDINANCES AND RESOIIffloNs: Councilman Thom moved toy airs the
re~din~ in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
vaiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Nembers unless, after reading
of the title, specific request is made by a Council Nember for the reading of
such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
NOTION CARRIED.
REPORT .- FINANCIAL D~i~NDS AGAINST TBE CITY: Demands against the City in the
mmount of $2,920,681.17, in accordance eith the 1973-74 Budget, vere
approved.
CONT~ PUBLIC I!F~KRING -RECLASSIFICATIONNO, 73=74-27m V.AR,.~ZNO. 2565.
ElqVT~~L INPACT REPORT ~0, 107 AN]) ADDEI*~DUM, AND TENTATX~ .'I~ACT NAP NO,
8511: The City Clerk submitted retuests dated April 23, 1971, from The William
Lyon Company, representing the applicant, Prudencio E. Yorba, requesting &n
eight-week continuance of this public hearing to JUne 18, 1974, fOr the
purpose of resubmitting revised plans for the project.
On motion by CouncilmnKmyeood, seconded byCouncilman Seymour,
public hearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-27 and Variance No. 2565 (E.I.R.
No. 107 and addendum) and Council consideration of Tentative Tract Nap No.
8511, vas continued to June 18, 1974, 1:30 P.N., as requested by the
applicant. NOTION C~RRIED
Mrs. Janice Jones, 1914 Elder Glenn, was recognised by the Mayor
and advised that interested residents have been in attendance atfour separate
meetings regarding public applications and she questioned the additional
delay.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reported that the matter must
again be considered at the City Planning Comnission level due to revised
plane which are to be submitted.
._ _[ --, II · I I , I I_ II J IJll . II m
74-392
City .Hall, Anaheim, California = COuNcIL MINUTES -'April 23, 1974~ 1:30 .P,M,
PUBLIC HEARING - REcLAssIFICATION NO. 73-74-41: Application by Joyzelle V. Risker
for a change in zone from R-A to C-1 on the northeast corner of Orangethorpe
Avenue and Post Lane.
Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-61, the City Planning Commission
recommended that subject project be exempted from the requirement to Prepare
an E.I.R. and further recommended aPproval of said reclassification, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Orangethorpe Avenue
and Post Lane 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 re-
quirements.
2. That 15-gallon size Magnolia trees shall be planted in the
parkway along Orangethorpe Avenue, evenly spaced along the frontage and
planted'in the parkway area or in tree wells.as approved by the Superin-
tendent of Parkway Maintenance, City of Anaheim.
3. That damaged and/or hazardous sidewalks shall be repaired
along Post Lane as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with
standard plans and specifications on file in the office of theCity Engineer.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire'Depar~ment prior to
commencement of structural framing.
6. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That a 6-foot masonry wail shall be constructed along the east
and north property lines.
9. That any parking'area lighting proposed shall be down-lighting
from amaximmnheight of 6 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from
the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area.
10. That draiaage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
11. That prior to introduction.of an ordinance rezoning subject
property, precise plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Commisiion and City Council, said plans to provide a 20-foot wide landscape
strip a~ the north.and east property lines.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject
property, Conditions No. 1 and No. 11, above-mentioned, shall be completed.
The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void
by a~tion 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.
13. That Conditions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, above-mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
ENVIP, ONM~N. TAL IMPACT ~EGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded
by Councilman Sneegas, ~he City Council finds that this project will have no
significant effect on the envirorenent and is exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject
property and the existing land uses and surrounding zoning, and briefed the
discussion and action ~aken at the City Planning Commission hearing. Hecalled
attention to Condition~o. 11 of the Planning CO~ission's rec°-..-..;endat~ons,
requiring that precise plans be approved by the Planning Con~ission and the
City Council, to include a 20-foot landscaped strip at the north and east property
lines, prior to the introduction of an ordinance.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's question, Mr. Roberts reported
that no one appeared in opposition to the proposed development; however,
letters have been received from nearby property owners, one of whom was concerned
about there being only a 4-foot fence between her yard and subject property.
7&-393
City Rsll, An~heim~ Californi~, = COUNCIL H,I ,~TES - April 23~
He pointed out that Condition No. 8 would require a 6-foot fence along the
north and east property lines, which would be measured from the highest
grade level, affording protection to the adjoining single-family dwellings.
ltayor Thom asked if the applicant or his agent had additional
consents to present,
Hr. Fred Brott of Coldwell Banker, 233 North Broad, my, Santa Ann,
addressed the Council advising that the agent previously~listed in connection
with subject property v~s no 1onset associated; hoversr' Coldwell Banker vas
nov representing the property owner.
The Hayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council
for or against the proposed development; there being no response~ declared
the hearing closed.
RESO~TION NO, 74R-187:. Councilman Pebley offered Resolution NO* 74R-187 for
adoption, authortzin~ 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 T~ CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
tqIAT TITLE 18 OF TfiE ANABEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATINC TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT TBE BOUNIIARIES OF CERTAIN ZOI~S SROULD BE CHAN(IBD. (73-74-~1 - C-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEHBERS: I~yvood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 74R-187 duly passed aud adopted.
.,~JBL~ ~II~ = RECLASSIFICATION 1~,. 73-74=49 - CONDITIONAL USE PEI~IT NO, 1457 -
.E~VI~ITI~L IHPACT ~ ~, 120 ~ntati~ Tract No. 8560): Application by
~ F. and Ethel C. Del Giortio for a c~nie oi zone fr~ R-A to R-H-10,000,
to establish a five-uni~ pla~ed residential development to be used as a model
h~ co. lex with sales offices for the proposed construction of'one tentative
tract ~th 99 '&tlli~ units (property located southerly of Santa ~a Canyon
Road, east of ~erial ~ilhvay), ~ith the follovini Code waivers:
a. Naximumnumber of free-standing signs.
b. ~ximum sign area.
The City Plan~!n~ Commission~pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-66~
recommended that the City Council certify to havin~ reviewed and considered
the information contained in Environmental Impact Report No, 120 and that the
final E.IoR. has been completed in compliance ~rlth the Califotmia Environmental
quality Act and the State Guidelines~ and further~ recommended approval of
said reclassification~ subject to the follo~in~ conditions~
1. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted
to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the
Oranse County Recorder.
2. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid aC the time the building
permit is issued.
3. That the completion of these reclassification proceedings is
contingent upon the approval of Tract No. 8560.
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
cm~encement of structural framing.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City
Council approval of the final tract map; that the covenants, conditions and
I _l _ ] I I I I I Il I I wi III II lc l-t _ll,I . I[ IIIII II Jl I I {Imm. I
74-394
City Hall; Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
restrictions shall provide for the retention of the proposed 23.5 acre
commonly-owned open space area which shall be maintained in a natural state
with riding and hiking trails proposed through the area; and~ further, that
the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded con-
currently with the final tract map.
6. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject
property, Condition Nos. 1, 3, and 5, 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.
Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-67, the City Planning Commission
granted said conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That all signs shall be removed immediately upon "sell-out" of
the subject tract, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO~ 8560 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-49AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1457): Developer, The McCarthy Company of Southern California;
property is located southerly of Santa Aha Canyon Road approximately 7800 feet
east of Imperial Highway, containing 99 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission approved said tentative map, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8560 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-49.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form 'for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council
approval of the final tract map; that the covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall provide for the retention of the proposed 23.5-acre commonly-owned, open
space area which shall be maintained in a natural state with riding and hiking
trails proposed through the area; and, further, that the approved covenants,
conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map.
6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the
proposed functioning of the operating corporation, including but not limited
to the articles of incorporation~bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding
to insure maintenance of coaa~on property and buildings, and such other informa-
tion as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the
purchasers of the project.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
8. 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 required
off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive
assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage faci~ities will be
74-395
City ~a11~ AnaheimI Cali,fornia - COUlqCIL HIKOTES - ~pril 23a, 19741
completed prior to OcCo~r 15ch. Necessary righc-oE-~y for off-site
dra~ge facilities s~ll be dedicated co the C~Cy, or the City Council
s~ll ~ve tni~ta~ed cond~a~ton proceedings ~herefor (~he costs o[ ~ich
s~ll be bo~e by ~he developer) prior
~ required drainage ~acilt~ies shall be off a size and ~ype suf~icten~ ~o
carry ~noff~ers ortgi~n8 Er~h[~er pro~r~ies throu~ ~td p~oper~y
to ult~te disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage [acll-
t~tes shall be ~he [trst 1~ o[ construction and shall Be c~ple~ed and Be
[~c~1o~1 ~hroughou~ ~he ~rac~ and ffr~ ~he do~s~re~ boundary o[ ~he
proper~ ~o ~he ul~e ~in~ off dts~sal prior to ~he [ss~nce o[ any
frill building tnspec~t~s or occupancy pe~t~s. Drat~ge dis~rtc~ re~-
burs~en~ a~e~ents ~y be ~de ava[lable ~o ~he developers o[ sa[d proper~y
u~ ~he[r request.
9. ~a~ ~ading, exca~on, and all other construct[on ac~iv[~[es
shall Be c~duc~ed in such a ~nner so as Co minimize the possibility o[ any
ailc originating [r~ 2his proJec~ being carried tn~o the San~a A~ River by
s~o~wa~er origi~ing [r~ or flying through chis project.
10. ~at ~he o~er(s) of subject proper~y shall pay
Anahe~ ~he appropria~e park and recreation in-lieu fees as deCemined ~o be
appropriate by ~he City Council, said flees Co be paid a~ ~he ~ the building
~iC is issued.
11. T~C Del Giorgio Road Er~ohler Drive
Hohler Drive shall be constructed in accor~nce with ~he City o[ A~ahe~
a~an~rd [or a Hillside Collector.
12. ~a~ ~ohler Drive [r~ Santa And Canyon Road Co Del Giorgio
Road shall be constructed in accordance with the Ct~y'o[ Anahe~ $~andard
[or a Hillside Collector.
13. ~ Del Giorgio ~oad fr~ 860 fee~
"G" S~ree~, and "~" S~ree~ [r~Del Giorgio Road to [uture Fai~n~ S~ree~
be constructed in accordance with the City of Anahe~ standard [or a Hillside
Collector with access on one aide ~ly.
1~.' ~ the proposed ~en~a~ive crackup shall be approved subject
Co the o[[icial deCe~i~ion By ~he City o~ ~he precise aliment o~ future
Fai~C SCree~.
15. That fire breaks shall be provided aa requ~ed and approved by
the Fire Chief.
16. ~at she develoPer shall furnish cer~ifficac~n to the City
~echer ~he d~ tn ~ '~" ts subJec~ Co re~lacion by the SCa~e of Califo~ia
De~r~en~ o[ ~ater Resources and, i~ i~
~he Scats law tc ts ex~p~. If ~he ~m ia no~ subJec~ Co Sta~e re~lation,
the developer shall rupiah the City a repor~ ~r~ an engineering 8eologts~
with a rec~endaCion conceding ~he safety of the dam. Said repor~ shall
include, but not be l~ited ~o, the ~ollowin8 in~o~ion: height of the
d~, storage ca,city of the rese~oir, area of ~he drainage basin, da~a
conce~in8 subsoil and foundation condiCi~s, ~Ceriala o~ c~s~ructton,
geolo~ of d~ si~e and any possible geologic hazards.
17. ~at plot plans su~ttted [or building pe~tts be dra~ ac a
sufficient scale with contour intervals of no~ more ~han 2 fee~ to sho~ all
on-aide ~prov~en~s, including retaining walls, s~ai~ays, walks, and drive-
~ya, aa s~tpula~ed ~o by ~he petitioner.
18. ~ all roof wa~er be collected
non-erosive drainage devices unless o~hewise retreaded by a soils engineer
aa stipulated ~o by the
19. ~t all buildtn8 si~es be Inspected and approved by a soils
engineer [or r~oval of tree roots and o~her deleterious substance prior
ffounda~ton tnspec~t~, as s~i~la~ed ~o by the pe~ttioner.
In answer to a question by Councilwoman Kaywood, City Engineer 3ames
P. ~addox reported that, should the existing earthen dam overflow or give
way, the water would not flow into the residential area; and he described the
path these waters would take.
Nayor Thom asked if the applicant or his agent wished to address
the City Council.
Dan L. Rowland, Architect, 1000 W. La Palms Avenue, Anaheim, repre-
senting the ~cCarthy Company, reported on preliminary discussions held with
74-396
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
homeowners' association groups in the area, representatives of the Orange Unified
School District and members of the City's Interdepartmental Committee concernirg
the various aspects involved in a development of subject property. He then
went to the base map posted on the east wall of the Council Chamber and with the
aid of overlay maps~he illustrated a slope analysis of the various slope areas
in the vicinity of subject proper~y~ranging in degree of steepness from 0-1W4,
lO-2W/o, 20-307°, and over 3W/o. Other overlays depicted existing foliage and foot
trails, natural topography, etc.', and he noted that water was imponded some
years back to provide irrigatio~ but if the dam becomes a problem, it will be
removed, and the land returned to its natural grade s° that the water would
seek its natural course.
Also illustrated was the proposed traffic circulation which follOWs
the natural grades. Mr. Rowland advised that they have proposed 99 building
sites on the 65 acres of subject property, or approximately 3/4 of an acre
per dwelling unit, and he pointed out that open areas were to be retained
and the dwellings themselves would be constructed in a manner unique to Orange
County, being a modified system of construction, rooted into and following
the contours of the land. He described the five basic plans with split level
homes adjusting to the sloping contours, and pointed out that if the property
was developed for R-H-22,000, it would be necessary to grade to create building
pads, and abandon the idea of keeping the natural terrain, eliminating the
large open areas.
Other details of the construction were outlined, such as exteriors
being constructed only of wood, not plaster, and all homes si~ed for a view,
for privacy, and to allow parking areas° He described the precise points of
alignment with the two extremities of Fairmont Drive, and the traffic circula-
tion around the school, noting that the subject property should be basically
self-contained in order to have as little impact on Mohler Drive as possible;
however, in the interests of the con, nudity at large, it Was felt secondary
access to the area is a necessity for fire protection and other services.
With regard to horses which are kept by some area residents, it was
the developer's position that, under provisions of the City's site development
standards, together with the manner in which the proposed development is planned,
no horses would be located any closer to one of the proposed dwellings ~hen
approximately 200 feet~ which should cause no problems°
Mayor Thom asked if anyone else would desire to address 'the Council
in support of the proposed development;thereb~tngno response, asked for opposition.
Mrs. Mitzy Ozaki, 21312 Mohler Drive, advised that although they are
not opposed to the development, per se, they do oppose the minimum 10,000 square
foot lot zoning inasmuch as Mohler Drive and the Peralta Hills area are the
only remaining locations in the City which are zoned for estate sized lots;
therefore they request subject zoning application be denied.
Mr. Phillip JouJon-Roche, President, Santa Aha Canyon Property Owners'
Association, mounted graphic exhibits on the Council Chamber wall (copies
furnished each Council Member), and thereupon read petition of opposition pur-
portedly signed by 117 residents in the area. He called attention to the letter
dated April 22, 1974, signed by himself and Mr. Stewart Moss, Vice President
of their Association, detailing opposition to any deviation from the R-H 22,000
estate lot zoning.
After reviewing the total project as proposed, Mr. Joujon-Roche
stated that they are impressed therewith, but the basic problem of lot size
remains. He stepped to the posted graphic exhibits, No. I showing zoning of
Mohler Drive Annexation and surrounding territory; No. 2 depicting R-1 develop-
ment still available in the Grant Corporation developments, and including the
proposed tract on the Del Giorgio property; No. 3 illustrating the Mohler Drive
area adjoining subject property, with estate sized lots. Mr. Joujon-Roche was
of the opinion that a way of life is a major factor for consideration, with
approximately 20-25% of the residents keeping horses and deeply involved in
other rural activities such as large gardens, fruit Crees, etc. That the area
population would be more than doubled with the advent of the proposed develop-
men t.
74-397
F
City Ballm Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTBS -Apri.1 23m 1974, 1:30
Mr. JouJon-Roche raised the question of maintaining the common area
as proposed by the developers, being of the opinion that the City should pre-
serve the rural character of their area from urbanization. As an alternative,
he posted an overlay on the wall exhibit, illustrattn~ development containing
home sites of approximately one-half acres, w~th streets generally following
the existing farm roads, and requested assistance from the City Council to
preserve the inteBrity of the unique life style.
In response to questions of the Council, Mr. JouJon-Roche advised
that their alternate plan showed 64 dwelling units and that approxflnately 20-
25% of the land within the area of, and surrounding, subject property is owned
by non-residents. He expressed concern that in the future, owners of many of
the larger parcels might possibly want to develop their properties., and a
precedent would be established by allowing higher densities such as this pro-
posal.
Hr. Ronald Bevins, Attorney, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim,
representing Pierre Nicholas, owner of approximately 13.3 acres to the south-
west of subject property, stated that they are not opposed to the zoning, the
development,nor to the proposed density; however, the alignment of Fairmont
9rive as projected on the tract map is of concern. He pointed out on said
map the ~wo points of connection, one at the top of the ridge and one at
Santa Aha Canyon Road, between which it it was their understanding the City
had specified Fairmont Drive would be extended. Further, that where Weir
Canyon Road was originally intended to cross the Riverside Freeway, it is now
proposed Fairmont Drive would cross instead..
Mr. Bevtns called attention to the terrain inwhich there would.be
required slope easements for the roadway, using a great deal of Mr. Nicholas~
land, and he took exception to the developer's claim of preservinB the rural
character of the area ~hen .a urlde secondary htgh~ay with slope easements
requtrin~ cuts into the land was planned, which seemed to him inconsistent.
The Environmental Impact Report indicates that some of the residents may be
exposed to noise from traffic.
Mr. Bevins further felt an existing road could be used for the pro-
posed secondary htBhway to serve the residential area, it being his opinion
that it was not necessary to aliBn the street directly throuBh the Nicholas
property, and said alis~ment should not be determined by which property in
the vicinity vas first to be developed; that it is logical to use the existing
roads, to use a straight line between two points. He sul~nitted for Council
review a copy of a map drawn by the City showing a preliminary plan for said
street aliBnment to be generally in a straight line, and noted that his client
will lose considerable property in road and slope easements; further, if the
tract map for subject property is approved as shown, and Mr. Nicholas later
applies for develo~nent of his property while said tentative map is on file,
he felt they would be restricted by the proposed aliBnment as shown on the
Del Giorgio tract.
The tract map was reviewed at the Council Table by the City Council.
Councilman Pebley asked why the proposed aliBmnent had been changed since
1973 when 8aid map vas issued.
Mr. Maddox advised that the street vas proposed to be a 78-foot
right of vaywith a 6~-foot roadway, and the aliBmnent shown on the map was
never intended to be precise, but an illustration showing there was a connection
intended between Canyon Rim Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road at a future trine.
Also, he noted that the actual access point to Fairmont Drive is considerably
west of where indicated on the map shown, and the straight line connecting the
two access points would be west of subject property. That the EnBineerin$
Division is nowworking on the precise aliB~ment and until that is completed
w~thin a few weeks, it is impossible to say Just where the roadway will lie.
Councilman ,Pebley felt this point should be clarified before action
is taken on subject applications.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council in
opposition, there being no response, offered the applicant an opportunity for
rebuttal.
74-398
City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 23, 1974, !:30 P,Me
Mr. Bernard Smith, President of the Southern California Division of
McCarthy Company, advised that a straightline alignment of Fairmont Boulevard
would not adapt to the existing contours of the land; that they were presented
with the proposed street situation that had to be considered in their plans,
and after an engineering study, they arrived at the most likely area for the
road to fit into from the standpoint of contours, grades and total accessibility;
they were of the opinion that they had a most workable plan for this alignment.
If the plans were changed to incorporate a R-H-22s000 concept with
the 65 acres,there would be t~o dwelling units per acre on a mass-graded tract.
As presently proposed, more than 28 acres are devoted to con, non green area. He
reviewed the plans and pointed out they would be glad to work with the Parks'
and Recreation Department to insure connections with existing bridle trails.
They intend the common areas to be preserved through deed restrictions and
maintained bY community association; however, as a possible alternative, the
City could purchase the dam and other open areas as a park site.
In response to Councilman Pebley's question, Mr. Smith stated that
they could achieve 130 units on the land using mass grading, 25% or more in-
crease in population density over what they have proposed at this time; that
it would be economically feasible for them to develop in such a manner, resulting
in an entirely different type of home with flat pads and conventional housing,
which would be sold to people who would not demand the rural a~nosphere.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's query, Mr'. Smith advised they
could not proceed with actual construction of the development without a precise
alignment of Fairmont Drive. Further, that they would provide Professional
documented information concerning the earthen dam to satisfy the City Engineer,
or eliminate the dam.
Mr. Rowland came forward to explain that mass grading WOuld be
necessary to use the R-H-22,000 concept, as it WOuld only be WOrkable on a
0-1~/o slope, which would require considerable cutting and filling on the land.
He further advised that when the owner of subject property applied for annexa-
tion, he was told that his property would be zoned the closest comparable city
zoning to that which he already had in the County. At that time, Tract No. 4777
had been approved, which was R-I, Single Family Residential under the County,
and encompassed the "Phase 3" portion of the proposed development,as well as
property condemned by the Orange Unified School District for a school site;
however subject property was designated for future R-H-22,000 zoning upon
annexation.
In answer to Councilman Seymour's question, Mr. ltowland stated that
on the basis of the one-half acre lot size under R-H-lO,000 or R-H-22,000, an
equestrian-oriented project could not be comfortably accommodated, but people
who buy homes on subject property will be attracted by the natural environment
rather than by the equestrian orientation. They could stable horses nearby,
if desired. At the present time, to the best of their knowledge, there are
no existing easements for equestrian trails in the vicinity.
Mr. Smith pointed out the many precedents established by detached
single unit developments with their common areas, such as those located in
Newport Beach.
Mr. Eugene R. Puller, 23872 Avenue Columbia, Mission VieJo, representing
McCarthy Company, was of the opinion that a sense of pride would be an incentive
to those who purchase homes in the development to want to continue participation
in the association membership, which WOuld be compulsory with purchase, and be
m~naged by a Board of Directors consisting of residents.
Councilm~n Sneegas was of the opinion that the dam and green areas
would be used by a great many people other than residents of subject development,
and expressed concern that the City would be asked to take them over as a park.
Mr. Rowland pointed out that whether water was dammed or not, the land
where it is contained would have no utility other than a nature park, due to the
steep walled ravine and the rough unattended condition of the area. That their
74-399
City .Iisi1t Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23t ;1974t 1:30
goal was to allow Chis portion to remain in its natural state. It would be a
good place for use as a nature study area with its small predatory animals.
Mr. Watts, responding to question by Councilman Sneegas, was of the
opinion there would be no way to smarantee maintenance of the area by the
proposed homeowners' association;that possibly it could york as planned,
however it is also possible that some portion or even a majority of the
association members might decide not to continue maintenance or not to pay
taxes on the open areas, and he failed to see how the City could require that
they do so.
In response to Councilwoman Eaywood's question, Mr. Watts reported
that so long as the homeowners association owned and maintained the areas,
if someone should drown in the water at the dam, the City would not be liable;
however if accepted as a park site the City would be liable.
The Mayor declared the hearing closed.
CERTIFICATION - ENVIROI~fENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO, 120: Councilman Seymour moved that
Environmental Impact Report No. 120 having been reviewed by the City staff and
recommended by the City Planning Consnission to be in compliance with City and
State Guide Lines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the
City Council acting upon such information and belief, does hereby certify that
Environmental Impact Report No. 120 is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guide Lines. Councilman Pebley
seconded the motion. HOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Pebley noted 'the success of the type of housing construction
proposed along the natural contours of the land as evidenced on some of the
Hawaiian Islands and other parts of the United States, and was of the opinion
that the people presently residing along Mohler Drive could be faced urlth a
development less desirable than the one proposed; further, that the conditions
placed upon the zonings together with the site development standards would in-
sure orderly development and provide necessary safeguards. He thereupon
offered a resolution of intent to change the zone to R-H-10,O00, subject to
rec~ndations of the City Planning Commission.
Prior to the roll call vote, Councilwoman Kayvood stated that the
CiVy had guaranteed people in the annexed territory preservation of their
rural element and their estate sized lot zoning, and she did not want to see
the City Council break that faith.
Councilman Seymour felt that the concept of the proposed development
is sound, and the only element about which he was concerned was that plans
did not take into consideration an existing way of life in the vicinity, the
horses, agricultural uses, etc., together with the ability to maintain them.
He co~mended the developers and architect for a beautifully prepared project
in every other way.
Councilman Thom stated he was in basic agreement withCouncilman
Seymourts remarks.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HENBERS: Sneegas and Pebley
COUNCIL NEHBERS: Kayvood, Seymour and Thom
COUNCIL NENBERS: None
The Mayor declared the foregoing Resolution failed to carry.
RESO,.I~JTION NO, 74R-188: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 7~R-188 for
adoption, denyingReclassification No. 73-74-,/+9 without prejudice.
Refer to Resolution Book.
74-400
City Hall, ,Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (73-74-49 - R-H-10,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-188 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO, 74R-189: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-189 for
adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1457 without prejudice.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1457.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sueegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution. No. 74R-189 duly passed and adopted.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 8560: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
COUnciiwomanKaywood, Tentative Tract No. 8560 was denied without prejudice.
To this motion, Councilmen Pebley and Sneegas voted "no", MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Seymour moved 'for a five-minute recess. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:45 PoM.)
AFTER .RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all members of the City
Council being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (3:50 P.M.)
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application filed by Ben D. Kenney for amusement devices
permit to allow skill games, ping ponE, air hockey, pinball, etc., to be in-
stalled at the Camelot Golf Course, 3200 Carpenter Avenue, was submitted and
granted, subject to provisions of Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of th~ AnaheimMunicipal
Code, as reco~aended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councihnan Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application filed by Peter T. Calmer for amusement devices
permit to allow a mechanical soccer type table game at Big John's Pizza, 807 E.
Orangethorpe Avenue, was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapters
3.24 and 4.20 of the Anahetm Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of
Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley entered the meeting. (4:00 P.M.)
REQUEST - CARROUSEL OF ANAHEIM CULTURAL ARTS, APPROVAL OF BUDGET: Request of Bernice
Douglas, President of the Women's Division of the Ch~nber of Commerce, and Ruth
Salaets, Director, Carrousel of Anahetm Cultural Arts, for approval of the 1974
Carrousel of Anaheim Budget, was submitted.
City Manager Keith Murdoch noted revisions to the budget as submitted,
and he briefly reviewed items contained in the budget breakdown dated February 14,
1974, as compiled by the ConventionCenter Division, totaling $10,000.
Mr. Murdoch further advised it was his intent to again meet with
the representatives of the Carrousel program to insure that tl~ budget would
not exceed the $10,000 figure.
On the recommendations of the City Manager, Councilwoman Kaywood moved
74-401
City Nail" Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23t .1974~ .1:30 P~M,
that the budget proposed for the 1974 Carrousel of Anaheim Cultural Arts be
approved, not to exceed $10,000. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
To this motion, Councilman Pebley vote "no". HOTIONCARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COHHISSION ITEl/S: Actions taken by the City Planning Co~isston
at their meeting held April 1, 1974, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for Council information and consideration:
1~ ENVIRONHEI~AL IHYACT REPORT EXEHPTION STATUS: As reco~,ended by
the City Planning Cmmnisslon,on the motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by
Councilman Seymour, it was the finding of the City Council that the subject
projects in the following zonir~ applications be exempt from the requirement
to prepare an E.I.R. pursuant to the provisions of the CaItfornta EnVironmental
Quality Act:
Variance No. 2584
Conditional Use Permit No. 1458
MOTION CARRIED.
2, VAR~ NOt 258~: Submitted by Landmark Associates to establish light
manufacturing and mini-warehouse facilities on M-1 zoned property located
on the south side of Via Burton Street, east of State College Boulevard
(Reclassification No. 55-56-10), with waivers of the following:
.a. Minimum required setback.
b. Hinimumrequired parking.
c. Maximum si~n height~
Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-68, the City Planning C~ission
granted vaiver "a", and waivers "b" and "c" in part, subject to condi-
tions.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1458: SUbmitted by Arno H. Stovall,$r. to
establish a carwash and drive-in dairy; C-1 zoned property located at 117
South Western Avenue (Reclassification No. 65-66-96, Conditional Use Permits
Nos. 822 and 1026, and Variance No. 1771), withwaivers of:
a. Required landscaping setback adjacent to R-A zone.
b. Maximum building height within 150 feet of R-A zone.
The City Planning Comnission,pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-70,
~rented said conditional ule permit, subject to conditions.
&. EX~PTIONFROM FILING ENVIROI~EN~L IHPACT REPORTS - CONDITIONAL USE
PEI~IITNOSt 1&59AND 1460: On motion by Councilm~n Thom, seconded by Council-
man Seymour, the City Coincil ratified the determination of the Director of
Development Services that the proposed activities under Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 1459 and 1460 fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class II,of the
City of Anaheim Guidelines for ~he requirements for an environmental impact
report and are,therefore,cate$orically exempt from the requirement to file an
environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
~, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1459: Submitted by J. Richard Farley and Robert
P. Dupre, to permit a diesel engine repair service in an industrial complex on
M-1 zoned property located at 1815-C Orangethorpe Park (Reclassification No.
53-54-3 and Conditional Use Permit No. 145~).
The City Planning Commission,pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-71,
granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PI/lilT NOv 1460: Submitted by George C. Page to establish
an outdoor storage yard for new motor homes and trailers on M-1 zoned property
located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, north of Orangewood Avenue with
waivers of the following: (Reclassification Nos. 56-57-93 and 66-67-14 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 1065)
74-402
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES = April 23, 1974, !:30 P.M.
a. Minimum front structural setback.
b. Minimum front setback landscaping.
c. Minimum storage area landscaping.
d. Required enclosure of outdoor uses.
Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-69, the City Planning Commission
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1460 for the use only, all the foregoing
waivers "a" through "d" being denied, subject to conditions.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 121: Property being located in the north
central portion of Anaheim Hills, extending along the southerly side of Nohl
Ranch Road from Imperial Highway to one-half mile east of Anaheim Hills Road
(Reclassification No. 73-74-46 and General Plan Amendment No. 123 B)
At the request of the petitioner, all proceedings on Environmental
Impact Report No. 121 were terminated.
8. VARIANCE NO. 2450 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Monte B. Orr,
Industri~l Pallet Company, for a one-year extension of time, approved to
temporarily permit an outdoor industrial use and storage area for the con-
struction of wooden pallets; M-2 zoned property located on the west side of
Olive Street and the east side of Pratt Street, north of La Palms Avenue.
Aone-year extension of time was granted by the City Planning Commission,
retroactively to December 19, 1973, and extending to December 19, 1974.
9. VARIANCE NO. 2485: Submitted by Patrick F. Brown, Aristocrat Mini-Warehouses,
Inc., requesting a one-year extension of time for completion of conditions to
permit the establishment of a mini-warehouse facility; M-1 zoned property loca-
ted at the northwest corner of the Orange Freeway and the Riverside Freeway.
The City Planning Commission granted a one-year extension of time to
expire April 2, 1975.
10. GENERAL PIAN AMENDMENT NO. 130: Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-72, the
City Planning Commission amended Resolution No. PC74-43, nunc pro tunc, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 130 by adding a paragraph containing an environmental
impact report finding for General Plan Amendment No. 130 (Reclassification No.
73-74-36).
The foregoing applications and actions were reviewed by the City
Council and no further action taken.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 72-63 (ORANGE COUNTY} - YORBA PARK ACCESS
ROADS AHDASSOCIATED SANTA ANARIVER FLOOD CONT~DL IMPROVEMENTS: Submitted by
the Orange County Road Department requesting the City of Anaheim to review and
comment concerning an environmental impact report for the provision of a road
access to Yorba Regional Park and construction of flood control works along the
Santa Ana River in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road.
Approval of the alternate proposal of the Orange County Road Department, as set
forth in a letter dated February 26, 1974, said proposal providing for the
construction of a bridge over the Santa Ama River so as to connect Yorba Regional
Park with Weir Canyon enterchange and extension of La Palma Avenue to connect
with Yorba Park Road was recommended by the City Planning Commission to the
Orange County Commission.
Onmotion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
Environmental Impact Report No. 72-63, Alternate Proposal, of the Orange County
Road Department was approved as recommended by the Anaheim City Planning Commission
to the Orange County Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
12. AM~..NDMENT TO TITLE 18 - ZONING: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by
Councilwoman Kaywood, public hearing was scheduled May 14, 1974, 1:30 P.M. to
consider amending Section 18.28.020 - Permitted buildings, structures and uses
(RS-5000 Zone). MOTION CARRIED.
74-403
City Mall, Anaheim, California - cOUNC. IL MINUTES - April ~3,1.19~4, ~:30 P.M.
~EC~SFIGATION NO, 73-74-36 (GENERAL PlAN AME~T 130 AND ENVIRO~TAL ~tPACT
REPORT NOt 113} - REQUEST FOR ~E~EARING: Petition from David Reed,Jr., 914
Fairview Street, received April 19, 1974, for new hearings or rehearings to
be held on Reclassification No. 73-74-36, based on new evidence, was sub-
mitted for City Council consideration; property located generally between
La Palms Avenue and the Riverside Freeway, and Euclid and Brookhurst Streets,
zoned R-A proposed for PC (approved March 19, 1974, Resolution of Intent No.
74R-116).
It vas noted that earlier petition for rehearing was submitted to
the City Council on March 26, 1974, at which time said request vas denied.
Mr. Reed addressed the City Council requesting that the proposed
new hearing or rehearing be scheduled for an evening session of the City
Council, that fees therefor be waived, and he submitted a written document
setting forth his request and the new evidence (copies furnished each Council
Member). Mr. Reed advised that he had spoken to residents of the area as well
as to the representatives of the applicants for rezoning.
Councilman Sneegas expressed concern that a decision had been made
five ~eeks previously at a public hearing and he questioned what the criteria
for rehearin~s on decisions which had legally and constitutionally determined
the use of a given parcel of land.
Councilman Seymour stated this was his question also, and asked the
City Attorney under what liability the City. would be placed by granting such
a rehearing with the possibility of a subsequent denial of the reclassification.
Mr. Watts stated that without all the facts being known at the'
present time, it is impossible to determine whether or not the developer has
expended large sums of money, based upon the action taken by the City Council
mn March 19,.1974, granting the application, which would give him vested rights.
Further, that each request of this nature must be considered upon the
individual facts involved,and these facts would be the basis of his advice
to the Council regarding Councilman Seymour's question.
Councilman Thom vasof the opinion that the rehearing could be
scheduled, and the City Attorney prepared to advise the Council relative to
their risk and liability prior to any action being taken on the reconsideration
of subject rezontng request.
Councilman Sneegas expressed the opinion that the integrity of the
responsible parties making the previous decision to approve subject reclassi-
fication vas not being sufficiently regarded; that the word of the people in a
position to make such decisions at the time would be reversed if this request
is granted; that if this is the criteria the City Council is going to base
such decisions for rehearing requests upon, then perhaps they should go further
back in time and reconsider decisions made over the years. Hmeever, it is his
belief that the City Council has a moral obligation to proceed with decisions
already made.
Councilman ThOm remarked that such decisions were a matter of the
majority of the City Council to determine inasmuch as they are political
decisions.
Councilman Seymour stated he would make his own determination based
upon v hat opinion the City Attorney gives at the appointed time; however in
his opinion to say that long established agreements, precedents, and methods
of conducting business or philosophies should be adhered to forever would be
unwise.
Council-mn Sneegas pointed out that this is not his intention, but
that sOmeone who has properly follmeed all necessary procedures to get his
application through staff, Planning C~ission and City Council hearings, and
& decision has been made, he should be able to depend upon that determination.
He failed to see any concrete new evidence set forth in Mr. Reed's petition
for rehearing, and if there are problems with the zoning ordinance,.the
74-404
City ~all~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
City Council should make changes and go forward, not make retroactive changes.
Additional discussion was held regarding another zoning case where
request for rehearing was granted, it being noted that that particular case had
been denied, and therefore no monies had been expended toward any development;
that the rehearing was sent all the way back through City Planning Commission,
rather than only coming before the City Council; that the property owner is
paying fees for said rehearing, and factors were involved as the basis for the
action.
Mr. Reed pointed out that over 500 people in the area of subject
reclassification had previously requested disapproval of the proposed change
in zone.
At the conclusion of the discussion, it was moved by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that rehearing on Reclassification
No. 73-74-36, General Plan Amendment No. 130, and Environmental Impact Report
No. 113 be granted as requested, and scheduled for May 14, 1974, 7:00 P.M.,
subject to payment of a $50 fee to help defray publication costs. To this
motion, Councilmen Pebley and Sneegas voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley left the meeting. (4:35 P.M.)
Later in the meeting, Mr. Jim Christiansen, 655 North Mountain Avenue,
Upland, California, representing Matreyek Homes, Developer of the property in
question, was recognized and informed of the foregoing action taken by the
City Council.
Mr. Christiansen questioned the basis for the' approval of Mr. Reed's
request, and advised that considerable funds have been invested in the project,
however he would withhold any legal comment, pending consultation with his
company's attorneys. It was his opinion that it was unfair to grant the re-
hearing without giving them an opportunity to resolve any problems concerning
the project.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - CALLFOR BIDS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
Nos. 74R-190 and 74R-191 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
INSTALLATION OF FIRE SIGNALS AT FIRE STATION NOS. 5 AND 6, WORK ORDER NO.
826, AND FIRE STATION NO. 7, WORK ORDER NO. 827.. (Bids to be Opened -
May 16, 1974, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-191: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
THE TUSTIN AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, FROM MIRALOMAAVENIIE TO 1075' SOUTH
OF MIRALOMAAVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1252. (Bids
to be Opened -May 16, 1974, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
None
Pebley
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-190 and 74R-191 duly passed
and adopted.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - FINAL ACCEPTANCE: Upon certification of the Public
Works Director, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 74R-192 and 74R-193
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-192: 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 TRANSPORTA-
TATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK
NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: THE SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD WATER IMPROVEMENT FROM ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD
74-405
CitF ~all~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, ~974,. 1:30 P..M~
TO NOHLER DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDERNO. 2256. (Ace
Pipeline Construction, Inc. - $29,400.00)
~ESOLUTIONNO. 74R-193: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OFT HE CITY OF
ANAI~XlM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPOR-
TATION INCLUDING PO~ER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK
NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: HODIFICATION, FURNISHING AND INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND
SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF HASTER STREET AND KATELLAAVENUE
AND KATELLAWAYAND KATELLAAVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 669-B. (Steiny and Company, Inc. - $96,781.$0)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneesas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPOP~qRILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-192 and 74R-193 duly passed
and adopted.
Councilman Pebley returned to the meetin$. (4:40 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-194 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Thom Offered Resolution
No. 74R-194 for adoption.
'Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Clarence L. Conzelman, William G.'
So~erville & Roland J. Jensen; Hallcraft Homes of Los Anseles, Inc.;
Floyd E. Furrow; Dew Construction Company; American National Housin$
Corporation; R. Thomas McLaushlin, et al.; A. & C. Commercial Properties;
Beverly A. Brennan, et. al)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-194 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pebley left the meeting. (4:42 P.M.)
RESOL.U~.IONNO. 74R-195: Upon report of the City Attorney, Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 74R-195 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE ANDTRANSFERRING THE SAME TO
THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-195 duly passed and adopted.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claflns were denied as recommended by the
City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Council~an Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour:
a. Claim submitted by T~y D. and Patrtcia Lucado for d~ma~ea to
real property, automobiles, etc., purportedly caused by manner in design of
traffic intersection, on or about January 12 and 19, 1974.
b. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for
property damages to 12-tube coaxial cable, purportedly resulting from place-
ment of sround rods by the City Electrical Division, on or about January 15,
1974.
c. Claim submitted by Robert Paul Kari for personal injury, lost
wases and medical bills and damages, purportedly resultin$ from conduct and
activities of Police Officers, on or about January 8, 1974.
, __ _ I rlTll I . [ I · I II IIIIIII LII I I IIIII III ~
74-406
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
d. Claim submitted by James J. Salzbrunn for personal injury damages,
purportedly resulting from condition of traffic signals at intersection of
Katella Avenue and Walnut Street, on or about January 24, 1974.
e. Claim submitted by Ned R. Baldwin for personal property dnmnges,
purportedly resulting from collision with City vehicle, on or about March 4,
1974.
f. Claim submitted by William C. Rucker for personal injury damages,
purportedly resulting from a fall on concrete at Anaheim Golf Course, on or
about March 29, 1974.
g. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property
damages to gas utility service, purportedly resulting from installation of
water meter, on or about March 21, 1974.
h. Claim submitted by James R. Riley for d-mages to bicycle tires
and rims, purportedly resulting from grates located over drains along Kraemer
Avenue, south of La Palma Avenue, on or about April 1, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was. ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour:
a. City o£ Orange - Resolution No. 3950 - Expressing opposition to
public employer-employee relations legislation and supporting Senate Bill 522.
b. City of Santa Aha - Resolution No. 74-29 - Opposing Assembly
Constitutional Amendment 67.
c. City of Santa Ama - Resolution No. 74-41 - Expressing its opposi-
tion to certain proposed public employer-employee relations legislation.
d. City of Santa Aha - Resolution No. 74-44 - Urging the California
Legislature to adopt legislation providing that certain workmen's compensation.
benefits shall be limited to retired public employees whose injuries developed
and manifested themselves during the course of their employment.
e. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2304 - Endorsing Proposition
One, the $250 Million Parks and Recreation Bond Issue on the June 4th Statewide
Ballot.
f. Airport Land UseCommission - Notice of Public Meeting
(April 18, 1974) and Minutes - April 4, 1974.
g. Community RedeVelopmentCommtssion - Minutes - March 27, 1974.
h. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - March 21,
1974.
k.
1.
March, 1974:
i. Anaheim Parks and Recreation C~ission - Minutes - March 21, 1974.
Community Center Authority - Minutes - April 1~1974.
Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - March 11, 1974.
Financial and Operating Reports for the.Months of February and
Water Division (February)
Fire Department (March )
Police Department (March )
Engineering Division (March )
MOTION CARRRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3287: Councilman Sneesas offered Ordinance No. 3287 for adoption
Refer to Ordinance Book·
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3264, NUNC PRO
TUNC, RELATING TO ZONING. (Service Station Standards)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
None
Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3287 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3288: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3288 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAgEIMAMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, SECTION
1.04.540 AND 1.04.550 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALLOWANCE
FOR EXPENSES TO MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR
APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR. (Not to exceed $50.00 per commission meeting
attended by member)
74-407
City Rs11, ~im, Californ/m - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri! 23, !974, 1:~0 P.M.
ALCORgLIc BEFE~E LICENSE APPLICATION: Application sub;ttted by Frank and Vera
Coz~ for ~-sale b~r and wine license for praises located at 1527 East
~ Pa~ A~, ~s conditio~lly protested on the basis of zones, on motion
by Counci~n Scour, seceded by Co~cil~n ~. HOTION
RESOLUTION NO, 74R-196: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-1~6 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY oF ANAHEIM WITHDRAWING FROM
Tt~ JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OF 1973 BET~EN THE CITIESOF ANAHEIM, STANTON
AND CHINO, CREATING THE CHINO HILLS AIRPORT AUTHORITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCLLMEHBERS: Kaywood, Se~nnour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEHBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 7~R-196 duly passed and adopted.
COI~TI.~JED PUBLIC ~RING -A~~T ~D TITI~ 18, ~NI~, C~ 18.62 - SIGNS,
~~S~G SIG~ ~ S~~S: To consider ~en~ ~o T~tle 18 of the A~he~
~ntci~l C~, C~pter 18.62. - Sectims 18.62.030, 18.62.050, 18.62.090(b)
and 18.62.O~(J). Continued fr~ the meeting o~ April 16, 1974, for a report
fr~ ~he Ci~At~o~ey.
Mr. Watts recommended two relatively minor changes in the wording of
Exhibit '~", Planning Co~ission Resolution No. PC74-45; that on Page No. 1,
Paragraph No. 1, the vord "or" be substituted for the term "and/or"; Page Nos.
2 and 3 (~xhibit '~"), further Was referenced to the "credit card logo", he
reco~nended the second reference be eliminated asbeing confusing, noting that
the reference was meant to refer to bank credit cards.
Planning Supervisor Don McDaniel reported that these credit card
losos referred to were small in size and service stations have not been required
to remove them from the sign poles by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's question, Mr. Watts reported that
the proposed ~nendment contained no reference to the posting of gasoline prices.
Councilman Thom noted that, based on'a strong reco~endation from the
Anaheim Ch~nber of Commerce, a price posting requirement was not included in
the ordinance amendment, the consensus of the Council opinion seeming to be
that nmny stations will be posting their prices'with the alleviation of the
gasoline shortage, and to enforce a general ruling would necessit~te additional
zoning enforcement.
Councilmen Sneegas and Seymour remarked they felt to require price
posting was entering into an area where the City Council should not intrude.
Councilnan Seymour questioned Section 18.62.090 - B 2a, Paragraph
No. 2, and asked for clarification on the height limits to which a si~n could
be installed.
Hr. McDaniel read from the existin/ Code section and pointed out where
the proposed chansewas, advising that 75 feet would be the maximum height
limit in a coe~nercial zone. He further s~rized additional restrictions in
Exhibit '~", noting it is hoped the number of variance requests, such as waiver
of maximum size of signs, etc., will be reduced by the passage of this ordinance
provision.
Also noted was the fact that "monument" type signs are not allowed
under the existing ordinance, as they can obstruct the visual sight lines;
however,~he proposed amendment would allow monument siena with sufficient set-
back to prevent visual obstruction.
*** For clarification of intent, see Minutes of June 4, 1974, 1:30 P.M., Page
74-558, '~inutes".
74-408
City Hall~ ..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri~ 23, 1974~. 1:30 P.M.
In the R-3 Zone, identification signs are presently limited to one
only, even in a two street situation; under the amended ordinance, one would
be allowed for each street frontage. That for service stations, there had been
several requests in the past for "lighter box signs", which at one time were
considered free-standing signs; but under the amendment they will now be
considered separate from a sign and be allowed as a matter of right.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the City Council with
regard to the proposed ordinance amendment; there being no response, declared
the public hearing closed.
ORDINANCE NO. 3289: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3289 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF TItE CITY OF ANAItEIMAMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.62,
SECTIONS 18.62.030, 18.62.050, 18.62.090, 18.62.045 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Signs, Advertising Signs and
Structures)
CONTINUED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIHE~ TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 7785 AND 7787: Sub-
mitted by Bruce G. Strickland, Project Manager, Toups Engineering Corporation,
requesting an extension of time for the subdivision of il0 RS-5000 zoned lots
on the north side of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Anaheim Hills Road (Reclass-
ification No. 71-72-5 and Environmental Impact Report No. 77).
Said request was continued from the meeting o'f April 16, 1974 for
supplemental report from the Development 'Services Department staff.
Mr. Roberts briefed the contents of the supplemental report submitted
this date (copies furnished each Council Member) and called attention to the
recommendations of the City Engineer and the Development Services Department.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, a one-
year extension of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 7785 and 7787 was approved, as
recommended by the City Engineer and the Development Services Department, to
expire March 28, 1975, subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall submit a letter to the City indicating that
all of the information contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 77, certified
by the City Council on January 2, 1973, is still valid and that no changes have
occurred to the property or to the immediate surrounding property which would
have an effect on the E.I.R.
2. That Condition No. 9 of the City Council approval of subject tract
maps be revised to read as follows: "That drainage of subject property shall
be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the prep-
aration 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 required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are
operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage
facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way
for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the Cit~
Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs or which
shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations.
The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Such 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 in-
spections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may
be made available to the developers of said property upon their request."
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL - DONALD KIRK: Request of Donald Kirk to
address the City Council was continued from the meeting of April 16, 1974,
to this date.
74-409
City bllm Anah2~, California - COUNCIL NIh~0Tgs - April 23, 197&, 1:~0 P.M.
The City Clerk reported that Mr. Kirk had telephoned her office this
date to requast a continuance inasmuch as he is out of town and camnot be pre-
sent today.
On ~otion by Councilwo~an Eaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
said request was continued to May 7, 1974. NOTION CARRIED.
ORDI~ ~O. 32~0: Council~an Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3290 for first reading.
AN ~INANCE OF TRE CITY OF A~4AREIM REPEALING SECTION 1.04.345 OF 'IRE
AI/A~]~ HUNICIPAL CODE. (Filing for Council dee~ed resignation fro~
Coma:[ssion)
~~ ~0. 3286: Councilwo~an Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3286 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
I[O~DIlIt~Cg OF ~ CITY OF AltA~I1/tl/I~D~ TITLE 4, 61tAPTER 4.05,
S~YrIO~ 4.05.020 ~ 4.05.090 OF Tag AlV~giM~ICIP~ CODI RELATING
TO BENCHES. (Permits' Applications, Fees and Renewal)
Roll Call Vote:
Kay~ood, Seymour, Sneega8 and Tho~
None
Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3286 duly passed and adopted..
..~.I(~ NO. 74R-197: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-197 for
adoption.
~efer to Re~°'lution Book.
A RF~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SETTING THE FEES
I~R B~S. (Ordinance No. 3286)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS:
NOgS: COUNCIL ~EIS:
ABSEFT: COUNCIL l/El/BEltS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Tho~
None
Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-197 duly passed and adopted.
On ~otion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by coUncilman Seymour, public hearing
~as scheduled May 14, 1974, 1:30 P.M., to consider proposed a~end~ent to
Title 18 of the Anaheim~icipal Code pertaining to conversion of existing
apartment complexes to condominium ownership units - Proposed Declaratory
gtate~ent. NOTION CARRIED.
!973-~& ~f ADJUSt: Mr. Nurdoch briefed revisions requested by the Finance
Director for the 1973-74 Budget to reflect additional allocations from unappro-
priated funds in the total amount of $1,583,555, resulting in an adjusted total
~uiget for the 1973-74 Fiscal Year of $65,995,945, said adjustment to be
distributed as follows:
Architectts fees for proceeding with
plans for total Civic Center Project
E~ployees Dental Plan
Previously negotiated salary increases
Manpower Administration Grant
Traffic Records Grant
Public E~ploy~ent Funds, Certificate Program
and De~onstration Program
$400,000
90,000
721,500
25,000
52,055
295,000
t ~.tI I1 ii [ II II[ I , I III II I
74-410
City Hall'~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 2.3~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
(Said adjustment previously discussed at the April 17, 1974,
9:00 A.M., Preliminary Budget Review - "Revisions, 1973-74 Budget".)
On the recommendation of the City Manager and the Finance Director,
it was moved by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, that adjust-
ment to the 1973-74 Budget be authorized, as outlined. MOTION CARRIED.
VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU - JOINT MEETING: On report of the City Manager con-
cerning request of the Anaheim Area Visitor and Convention Bureau, the City
Council directed that a meeting be scheduled May 7, 1974, 10:00 a.m. at
the Anaheim Convention Center.
REQUEST - SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS~ UNIFICATION CHURCH: Mr. Murdoch reported
that request for permission to solicit charitable funds has been received from
the Unification Church, 14154 Van Owen Boulevard, Van Nuys, a non-profit
organization listed with the State Franchise Tax Board.
Mr. Watts noted provisions of the ordinance governing such appli-
cations received from organizations which are not locally based.
The City Council determined that subject application be continued
one week for supplemental review and report by the City Attorney.
PROPOSED REVISION TO ANAHEIHHUNICIPAL CODE - CONDOMINIUMS: Councilman Seymour
recognized Mr. Dale Stanton, 1509 Harle Place, Anaheim, who questioned the
status of the proposed revision to the Anaheim Municipal Code'relating to
condominiums.
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson replied that
work sessions are being held by the City Planning Commission, and noted that
the first step has been taken this dat~, by scheduling a~public hearing by
the City Council on May 14, 1974, 1:30 P.M., to consider amendment to the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to conversion of existing apartment com-
plexes to condominium ownership units.
REPORT - SAL~S FROM NEWS RACKS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY: At the request of Councilman
Seymour, the City Attorney advised that within the past month a memorandum
report had been prepared for distribution to the City Council and copies would
be forwarded to new members of the City Council. Further, that the City
Attorney's staff was working on a definition of the term "obscenity", in con-
nection with request from the City of Santa Ana, and a copy of that information
would be forwarded to the City Council Members.
ALL AMERICA CITY DESIGNATION - LA HABRA: In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's ques-
tiom, it was reported that a Resolution of Congratulations was being prepared
for presentation to the City of La Habra.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT - SIGN AND BILLBOARDORDINANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood requested
that the Development Services Department review the Sign and Billboard Ordinance
and report on proposed amendments thereto.
ADJO~: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn to Wednesday, April 24, 1974,
9:30 A.M., for the purpose of a combined City Council-Department Head Budget
Study Meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:45 P.M.
City Clerk