1974/05/1474-480
C. ity Hall~ Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Hay 14}..!974. m 1:.30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEHBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Dan Van Dorpe
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill Young
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Pastor Jim Green of the Bethel Baptist Church gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
CERTIFICATES oF APPRECIATION: Certificates of Appreciation were presented to
former Mayor and City Councilman, Jack C. Dutton, former City
Councilman Hark A. Stephenson, former Planning Commissioner John
Seymour, and former member of the Library Board and of
the Park and Recreation Commission Glenn Fry. Also awarded to the
two former City Councilmen were Resolutions of Commendation from the
Orange County Board of Supervisors.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-236: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-236 for
adoPtion, noting that former Councilman Stephenson received membership to the
Anaheim Municipal Golf Course upon his retirement as Chief of Police.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHAWARDING TO
JACK C. DUTTON LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
AND THE USE OF ITS FACILITIES WITHOUT COST TO HIMSELF.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-236 duly passed and adopted.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and unani-
mously approved by the City Council:
"Sons of Columbus Days" - Hay 17, 18, and 19, 1974.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, Minutes of
Adjourned Regular Meetings held April 23, 24, and 25, 1974, were approved with
correction to Minutes of April 25, 1974: Page 74-423, Paragraph 6, Line 10,
figure "42" corrected to read "4,200". MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of
the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT'- FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $1,002,672.34, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
74-481
City M~!i~ Anaheim,-California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - coNDITIONAL USE 'PERMIT NO. 1461: Submitted by William R. Whirls,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant; C-1 zoned property
located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street (Reclass-
ification No. 65-66-118).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to their Resolution No.
PC74-75, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1461.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed
by Leonard Smith, Agent on behalf of the property owner, and public hearing
scheduled this date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Director of Development Services that the proposed
activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class No. 1, of the
City of Anaheim Guidelines for the requirements for an environmental impact
report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file
an E.I.R. MOTION CARRIED.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject
property and. the existing uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity, summarizing
the evidence submitted to'and considered by the City Planning Comission. He
called attention to an application filed in 1971 (Conditional Use Permit No.
1255) for on-sale beer and wine in a billiard room located in the same shopping
center, which was denied on the basis that the intended use was not family
oriented, and was in close proximity to a church, an elementary school and a
Junior high school.
In response to Councilman Sneegas' question, Mr. Roberts pointed
out that subject conditional use permit is for on-sale beer and wine at Mama
Cozza's Pizza Parlor, which is a bona fide restaurant and not a beer parlor.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent wished to address the
City Council.
Mr. Leonard Smith, Agent, 125 South Claudina Street, Anaheim,
advised there was some confusion at the public hearing before the Planning
Commission inasmuch as they had two applications at the same address before
the Commission, both having the same Applicant (Mr. William R. Whirls, owner
of the shopping center), both of which applications were to allow serving of
beer and wine, one for subject restaurant located at the extreme easterly end
of the shopping center, and the other application being to open a different
type of restaurant in one of the other units in the center, which application
bad since been withdrawn from consideration at both the City Planning Commission
and the State Alcoholic Beverage Control levels.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the restaurant operator, Mr. Frank
Cozza, had been a member of the Anaheim Police Department for 14 years, that
they proposed no signs, and the restaurant was not now, nor intended to be, a
beer parlor, but was a bona fide family restaurant serving Italian food with
the usual selection of wine or beer available with meals. Further it could
be seen even from the outside that the restaurant was well lighted, and he
noted that Mr. Cozza has had no problems at his other restaurant located on
Ball Road, and that he had a license to serve liquor at that location. He
thereupon presented a petition in favor of the conditional use permit, purpor-
tedly signed by 450 patrons of both restaurants (on file).
In answer to Council questioning, Mr. Smith expressed the opinion
that there was confusion at the Planning Commission hearing relative to the
two separate requests for the same address, the other being an entirely dif-
ferent type of operation including a bar, and he advised that he was Agent
representing Mr. Cozza only at both the Commission hearing and today's
meeting.
Mr. Frank Cozza, 1584 West Audre Drive, Anaheim, addressed the
Council advising that approximately 2/3 of the 450 signatures on the petition
were obtained from patrons at subject location; that his beer and wine license
at the Ball Road location had been in effect approximately eight years, and
the liquor license for two years. In answer to Council questioning, he
?4-482
CSt-; Hall, A~.a.~eim, Cal~fprnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 1974, i:30.P.H.
further stated there had been only one incident in all that time where a
patron refused to leave the premises, and he called for police assistance; that
he had never found itnecessary to forceably remove anyone else, and he remarked
that the waitresses employed in his restaurants are mature family-oriented
women.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of said
application; there being no response, invited opponents to address the Council.
Mr. Ray D'Andrea, 1313 Banyan Avenue, Anaheim, reported that the
petition of opposition previous submitted was signed by people at the church
where he is a member, and had to do solely with the Italian restaurant in
question. Regarding Council's discussion as to the procedure should the restau-
rant change hands and a transfer of the beer and wine license be requested of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Hr. D'Andrea stated he could not speak
for the si~nators of the petition.
Father Bruce Lavery of Saint Anthony Claret Church, 1450 East La Palms
Avenue, advised he was representing Father James Nash, Pastor of the Church,
who felt the Church should support the school principal and others in the vici-
nity who were opposed to subject conditional use permit. He 'pointed out that
the shopping area in question has been purchased by the Applicant, Hr. Whitla,
and one of the units in the center presently contains billiard.tables; further,
across the street on Anna Drive there are apartments catering to people of a
transient nature who are searching for a place to spend time and will use that
type of billiard operation for recreation. If a license were granted for
subject restaurant or any other in the center, people in the area were afraid
it would open the door for alcoholic beverage requests in other establishments,
such as the billiard room; that their school encompassed grades one through
eight, and some of their students go to the liquor store in the shopping center
to purchase soft drinks.
Father Lavery remarked that he personally was not opposed to subject
request other than the foregoing statements, and that he also believed that
alcoholic beverages should be served only in connection with the serving of
meals; however in making these last remarks, he was not necessarily speaking
for those who signed the petition.
In response to questioning by the City Council, Father Lavery advised
that to the best of his knowledge, the people who signed the petition of opposi-
tion were opposed to both requests submitted to the City Planning Commission,
and that Father Nash understood one of the requests was for the Italian restaurant.
In response to additional Council questioning, Mr. Cozza came forward
to report that his hours of operation are currently from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m., the restaurant being closed on Sundays; and he noted that at one time he
had to put a stop to young people loitering in the vicinity of his premises.
The Mayor asked if anyone else had opposition to present.
Mrs. Ann McCulloch, 505 Anna Drive, Apartment No. b, advised it was
her concern that no serving of hard liquor be allowed anywhere in the shopping
center; that the permit, if granted, should be for Mr. Cozza inhis restaurant
only, with no possibility of transfer to another party..
In answer to questions of the Council, the City Attorney clarified
that the beer and wine license was applied for in the nme of the restaurant
operator, Hr. Cozza and wife, although the conditional use permit was in Mr.
Whitla's name as owner of the shopping center; that generally, a conditional
use permit could be continued under a different ownership since such a permit
is granted for the use of the land, not the person using it; however it would
be under the same condition of a restaurant serving meals, as granted.
Mr. Roberts added that the development plans submitted together with
subject conditional use permit application indicated specifically to which
store building within the shopping center the permit applies; that should the
permit be granted, it could be made subject to said plan of development.
74-483
City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Further discussion was held, and Mr. Watts was of the opinion that
the permit could be specifically designated for the restaurant in questi°n,
but if connected to one operator only, it might be open to litigation at some
time in the future. That if on-sale liquor was requested, the City would be
notified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the license request, and
another application would have to be filed with the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council
in opposition; there being no response, asked for rebuttal.
Mr. Smith pointed out that if the restaurant were ever sold, the
Alcoholic Beverage License would not be transferable; the new owner would
have to apply for license, and the City, therefore, would be automatically
notified of said new license application before the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board.
The Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Pebley offered a resolution to approve Conditional
Use Permit No. 1461, Mama Cozza's Italian Restaurant only, with hours of
operation to be as previously stipulated to by the operator, and subject to
an additional condition that if the beer and wine license were transferred,
the conditional use permit would be terminated.
Further discussion was held, and Councilman Sneegas remarked that
to regulate the hours of operation to a business was not an area with which
the City Council should be concerned unless there is some detrimental effect
to neighbors involved.
Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that the question was one of
land use at this particular location, and he pointed out that two identical
business operations can be detrimental or compatible, depending upon factors
involved. If the restaurant in question were sold, new operators moved in
and were granted permission to proceed under the same conditions, the business
could be conducted in quite a different manner.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
COUNCIL HEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared that said resolution to approve Conditional Use
Permit No. 1461 failed to carry.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-221: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-221
for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1461.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMDENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1461.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEHBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
Pebley and Sneegas
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-221 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANAHEIHMUNICIPAL CODE: Public hearing
was held to consider proposed amendments to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title
18, Zoning, Chapters 18.04 and 18.08, pertaining to Conversion of existing
apartment complexes to condominium ownership units.
74-4~4
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission meeting held
April 1, 1974, (copies furnished each Council Member) was briefed by Associate
Planner Bill Young, wherein the Planning Commission recommended certain addi-
tions to the Anaheim Municipal Code entitled as follows:
a. Additions to Chapter 18.04, Zoning Code - General:
Section 18.04.160 - CONDOMINIUMS AND COMMUNITY APARTMENTS
Section 18.04.161 - Intent
Section 18.04.162 - Conversion of Existing Structures
b. Additions to Chapter 18.08, Zoning Code - Definitions:
Section 18.08.233 - "COMMUNITY APARTMENT"
Section 18.08.234 - "CONDOMINIUM"
Mr. Young briefed the background resulting in the proposed amendment
to the Condominiums and Community Apartments Ordinance, and called attention to
the declaratory statement proposed, which expresses the City's intent to distin-
guish between apartments and condominiums. Ne reported that another phase of
the Condominium. Ordinance revision had been recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of May 13, 1974, designated as the "PRD
Ordinance".
Assistant Development Services Director Ronald Thompson called atten-
tion to the amount of research done by the Development Services Department staff
on these proposed amendments, based on the experience of other cities, the
U.L.I. Report, and research done by Anaheim Hills, Inc., as well as research of
actual projects within Anaheim, and to the fact that there are considerable
major differences between condominiums and apartments, and it was felt because
of these differences, condominium developments should be controlled.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone desired to address the Council regarding
the proposed amendments to the Code; therebeing no response, declared the
hearing closed.
ORDINANCE NO. 3298: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3298 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.04
AND CHAPTER 18.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPALCODE RELATING TO ZONING.
PUBLIC H~ARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE: Public hearing was
held to consider proposed amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.28, Section 18.28.020
of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Permitted Buildings, Structures and Uses, in the
R-2, Multiple-Family Residential Zone.
Mr. Roberts reported that the only change in the proposed amendment to
the R-2 Zone would be the addition of Subsection c, Pargaraph No. 1 of Chapter
18.28.020, advising that the RS-5000 Zone, being a less intent zone, would
become inclusive in the R-2 and R-3 Zones.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the City Council for or
against the proposed amendment, there being no response, declared the public
hearing closed.
ORDINANCE NO. 3299: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3299 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.28,
SECTION 18.28.020 OF THE.ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by Sam C. Stramaglia for Dinner-
Dancing Place Permit at Bonnie's Brass Door, 735 North Anaheim Boulevard, from
7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., M~nday through Saturday, and from 3:30 p.m. to 12:00
midnight on Sunday, was submitted.
74-485
Cit~ Hall~ A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma.y 14~ 1~74~ 1:30 P.M.
On the recommendation by the Chief of Police, Councilman Sneegas
moved that said permit be denied. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion;
MOTION CARRIED.
PERMIT TO SOLICIT CHARITY FUNDS: Request submitted by Rosemarie E. Christopher,
Los Angeles Area Director, on behalf of the St. Jude Children's Research
Hospital Foundation, Inc., for permission to solicit charity funds during the
period ofNovember 8 through 15, 1974, was submitted and granted, as recommended
by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood. MOTION CARRIED.
PERMIT TO SOLICIT.CHARITY FUNDS: Request of Jack D. Collins, Manager, Orange
County Associated In-Group Donors (AID), for permission to solicit funds from
May 1, 1974 through April 30, 1975, was submitted together with reports from
the City Attorney, Chief of Police, and the License Division.
It was noted that said request was for a one-year period', whereas
the City ordinance allows 60 days for charity funds solicitations, and it was
explained that A.I.D. receives some donations through a one-year payroll
deduction plan, however the actual solicitation period can be limited to 60
days.
On motion by Councilman Thom,.seconded by Councilman Seymour, request
to solicit charity funds was granted for a 60-day'sOlicitation period only,
commencing May 14, 1974, as reconnnended by the License Division. MOTION
CARRIED.
PE~.MIT TO SOLICIT CMAEITY FUNDS: Request of David T. Buttram, Area Supervisor,
A~ape Force, was submitted for permission to solicit charitable funds April 22,
1974, through July 31, 1974, and further requesting waiver of business license
fee for the activity.
Mr. Harold Fenton, Field Director and Board Member of the Agape
Force, addressed the City Council further explaining the function of the
Organization as youth ministry and how the funds are collected and used.
On the recommendation of the City Attorney and the License Collector,
it was moved by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, that the
foregoing request be granted for the solicitation of funds only, subject to
the furnishing to the City Attorney by the Applicants of a financial statement
projecting the amount expected to be collected and the percentage, not to
exceed 10 percent, expected to be incurred in the collection thereof. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEE: Request of T. H. Thompson, Jr., General Chairman,
St. Anthony Claret'Fiesta, was submitted for waiver of business license fee to
stage the 17thAnnual St. Anthony Claret School Fiesta, May 17, 18 and 19,
1974, on the School grounds located at 1450 East La Palms Avenue. Also reviewed
by the City Council were reports submitted by the City Attorney's Office and
the License Division.
On the recommendation of the License Collector, it was moved by
Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that business license fee
be waived for only those activities operated by St. Anthony Claret parishioners,
subject to City Council Policy No. 305. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8082 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request was submitted by Jeffrey H.
Millet, Millet-King & Associates, for extension of time to Tentative Tract No.
8082, consisting of 43 proposed RS-5000 zoned lots located on the south side
of the Riverside Freeway, east of Imperial Highway.
In response to questions by the Council, Mr. Terry L. Crowther,
representing Pacesetter Homes, Inc., noted that subject tract is one of three
in process; that due to a delay in processing the first tract, No. 8080, their
schedule had been pushed back; however as soon as final plans are completed,
for subject' tract, they believe all conditions will have been met.
74-486
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May .14~ .1974~. 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour moved to grant a one-year extension of time to
Tentative Tract No. 8082, effective June 5, 1974, and to expire June 5, 1975,
as recommended by the Development Services Department. Councilman Thom seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - g. M. WEST: Request of E. M. West to permit a portion of an
existing three-foot high block wall to encroach upon dedicated right-of-way
along the south side of Lincoln Avenue at Larch Street, was submitted together
with report from the City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-222: On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman
Pebley offered'Resolution No. 74R-222 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH NADINE C.
AND ELVA M. WEST. (73-17E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEHBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-222 duly passed and adopted.
FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 7419 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 122 (RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 70-7!-53): Council consideration of Final Tract Map No. 7419 was continued
from the meeting of April 30, 1974, to be heard in conjunction with Environmental
Impact Report No. 122; Developer, American National Housing Corporation; tract
located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the west side of Walnut
Canyon Road, and contains 159 proposed RS-5000 zoned lots.
ENVIRONHENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 122: Property located as described in Final
Tract No. 7419 (continued from the meeting of May 7, 1974).
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held May 1, 1974,
recommended that the draft of Environmental Impact Report No. 122 be certified
in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act, and further, that the Appli-
cant be required to include in the final tract the method and technique by
which the sound attenuation for the project can be accomplished to provide
noise levels not to exceed 45 dba inside the dwellings and 65 dba outside the
dwellings within the tract.
Report from the Development Services Department dated Hay 14, 1974,
advised that the Applicant engaged the services of~Bio-Acoustical Engineering
Corporation to evaluate the acousticalenvironment of the tract and to determine
what measures are necessary to meet the above conditions.
Onthe recommendation of the Development Services Department, Councilman
Seymour moved that the requirements recommendedby Bio-Acoustical Engineering
Corporation be accepted as meeting the recommendations of the Planning Commission
with respect to the noise levels of Tentative Tract No. 7419, and that they be
included in E.I.R. No. 122; and further'moved that Environmental Impact Report
No. 122, having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the
State of CaliforniaEnvironmental. Quality Act, the City Council, acting upon
such information and to their best belief and.knowledge, does hereby certify
that E.I.R. No. 122 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and City and State Guidelines. Ceuncilman. Sneegas seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
T I I I ~1r II I I[ J J I
74'487
City. H. all~ A-~heim~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~. 1974,...1:30 P.M.
FINAL TRACT.MAP NO. 7419: The City Engineer reported.that the final map has
been checked and found technically correct and in substantial conformance with
the tentative map as approved; that fees have been paid and bonds posted and
forwarded.to the City Attorney for approval; and he thereupon recommended
aPproval of Final Tract Map No. 7419, subject to approval of building plans
and a tract E.I.R. (E.I.R. No. 122 approved this date).
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
Final Map of Tract No. 7419 was approved as recommended by the City Engineer.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-39 AND VARIANCE NO. 2581: Communication dated
May 9, 1974, from K. A. Nelson-, President, Nelson Development Company, Inc.,
was submitted requesting rehearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-39 and Variance
No. 2581 based on newevidence not available to the Applicant at the time of
the original hearing; property located at the southeast corner of Ball Road
and Sunkist Street. Said letter was read in full by the Deputy City Clerk (on
file).
Mr. Harry Knisely, 1741 South Euclid Street, representing Nelson
Development'Company, Inc., advised that additional new evidence has become
available since the letter was written by Mr'. Nelson, having to do with boundaries
of the proposed development being reduced so as to cut. it off from Cerritos
Avenue and from properties to the east. Further, that the Developer would
allow the balance of the property to remain in the M-1 Zone for possible
future sale and development. He requested that the rehearing be scheduled as
early as possible, as the Developer has commitments whichmust be met in the
very near future.
At the conclusion of brief discussion by the City Council, Councilman
Seymour moved that rehearing on Reclassification No. 73674-39, Variance No.
2581 and General Plan Amendment No. 131 be granted on the basis of new evidence,
subject to the payment of a $50.00 readvertising fee. Councilman Pebley
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-223 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 829: (Continued from the May 7,
1974 City Council meeting.) Inaccordance with recommendations of the City
Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-223 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A
SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR'THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALLUTILITIES ANDTRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER
FUEL AND. WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ADDITION AND REMODELING
OF THE ANAHEIM POLICE FACILITY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 829. (Anaheim Construction Company, Inc. - $134,973.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-223 duly passed and adopted.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS - WORK ORDER NO. 829: On report and recommendation of the
Assistant City Manager, Councilman Pebley moved that transfer of funds in the
amount of $45,000.00 be authorized from the Revenue Sharing Account to defray
additional construction costs under Work Order No. 829 (see Page 74-469,
May 7, 1974 Minutes). Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
74-488
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May .14~ 1974.~. l:.31Q P.M.
WORK ORDER, NO.. 1007 - .ANAHEIM POLICE FACILIT?f COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT: City
Engineer James Maddox reported that hisrecom~endation on Work Order No. 1007
was to award the bid to Motorola Communication andElectronics, Inc., as the
most responsible bidder, inasmuch as'the Iow bidder, Com. Sales, lists no State
contractor's license number nor classification, as required, nor did they list
a subcontractor, as required by the Government. Code of California, when in
fact it is proposed that Technical Products Engineering Company will do the
work; further, that the latter company's State contractor's license expired on
or about April 15, 1970. Therefore, the City could not legally award the bid
to Com Sales.
Mr. Howard Stern, 23028 Rencrest Drive, Calabasas, California, repre-
senting both Technical Products Engineering Company and Com Sales, which is a
sales outlet for Technical Products Engineering Company, addressed the Council
advising that they have been in the business of manufacturing communication
equipment for 15 years; that they believe their sales are second only to those
of Motorola Communications, which is a much larger company; that they feel they
help keep Motorola CommuniCations from becoming an even larger monopoly than
they already are; that they produce a quality product and charge a lower price
than the other bidder.
In addition, Mr. Stern called attention to other agencies to which
they have delivered quality products, and he compared their bid with that sub-
mitted by Motorola Communications, a difference of over $8,000. He further
noted that Mr. Joseph Alloroso, a member of the Com Sales' staff, holds General
Contractor License No. 147722, and he is employed by both Com Sales and Technical
Products; further, a letter setting forth this fact has been forwarded to the
Anaheim Director of Public Works.
Mr. Stern called attention to references for the two companies and
assured the Council~that they could match Motorola Communications in both
equipment and specifications. He pointed out that they submitted a fully
executed bid bond from a legitimate surety company, which would stand behind
their bid.
The City Attorney briefly described the procedures for formally
advertised calls forbid, publication in a local newspaper, and bid opening
procedures; and he pointed out that the bid item calls for furnishing and
installing manufactured equipment, and such installation is required by the
State Contractors' Licensing Board to be executed by a company holding a contrac-
tor's license; further, an employee of the company would not be bound by the
contract, and the licensing law of the Business and Professions Code makes it a
misdemeanor to award the contract to a companywhich does not hold a contractors'
license.
Senior Police Dispatcher Max Shepherd was recognized and recommended
that the installation not be delayed. In answer to Council questioning, he
pointed out that the difference in bid amounts was considerably less than
$8,000.00 when sales tax and other items not specified by Com Sales in the bid
proposal were added, while the Motorola Communications bid was all-inclusive.
Further, he was of the opinion that installation of such equipment by City
personnel would not be feasible.
Administrative Assistant John Harding noted that on Page 21 of the
bid standards, it is stated that under Chapter 9, Division 3 of the Business
and Professions Code concerning licensing of contractors, all bidders and
contractors shall be licensed. He noted that the bid was submitted by Com
Sales, which is a completely separate company from Technical Products Engineering
Corporation, and a division of a different corporation.; that if Technical
Products is to do the work, they must be listed on the bid as a subcontractor,
which they are not.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the meeting. (4:05 P.M.)
74-489
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~. 197.4.~ .!:30 P.M.
Mr. Jack Levy of Com Sales, addressed the City Council advising
that his company is an organization which was formed as a sales organization
only for the purpose of representing Technical Products Engineering Corporation.
He noted there had been a question as to whether or not the sales tax was
meant to be a lump sum for services and installation, as stated on the bid
specifications, and advised they could provide a custom system to meet the
individual needs of the customer.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-224: On the recommendation of the City Engineer and the
CityAttorney, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-224 for adoption,
awarding Work Order No. 1007 to the most responsible bidder.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A
SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER,
FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ANAHEIM POLICE FACILITY
COMMUNICATIONS CONSOLE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO.
1007. (Motorola Communication and Electronics, Inc. - $57,554.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEHPORARILYABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-224 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-225 - AWARD OF ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02: In accordance with
recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Thom offered Resolution No.
74R-225 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A
SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER,
FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMINGALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE APPLICATION OF SLURRY
SEAL UPON VARIOUS CITY STREETS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
100-421-241-02. (Flex-Paving and Engineering, Inc. - $27,922.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and. Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL HEMBERS: Kaywood
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-225 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-226 - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -.WORK ORDER NO. 2066:
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-226 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAItgIM FINDING AND
DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CON-
STRUCTION AND COHPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEHENT, TO WIT: THE
WESTRIDGE PUMP STATION, tN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 2066.
(Bids to be Opened - June 6, 1974, 2:00 P.M.)
74-490
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - C.OU.NCIL MINUTES -l~y 14~ 1974.~. 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-226 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the meeting. (4:15 P.M.)
FINAL COMPLETIONS - WORK ORDER NOS. 711-A AND 9188: Upon receipt of certifications
from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Nos.
74R-227 and 74R-228 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
REsOLuTION NO. 74R-227 - WORK ORDER NO.. 711-A:. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND
ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE
PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT THE
INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY. AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE, IN TH~ CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NO. 711-A. (Baxter-Griffin Electrical Contractor)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-128 - WORK ORDER NO. 9188: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS'AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE
PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE IMPROVEMENT OF DIANE WAY AT CAROL DRIVE
AND DAHLIA DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,. WORK ORDER NO. 9188.
(J. W. Tiedemann Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNC.IL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-227 and 74R-228 duly passed
and gdOpCed.
RI~SOLUTION NO. 74R-229 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
No. 74R-229 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Ledger T. & Gladys K. Smith;
Clarence H. Hoiles, et. al.; Nicholas W. Latimer; P. A. Cassel; Robert H.
Grant Corporation; Robert H. Grant Corporation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-229 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-230: On the recommendation of the Electrical Superintendent,
Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-230 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROAC}~NT PERMIT WITH SYCAMORE
PROPERTIES, A PARTNERSHIP (73-13E). (Building - South side of Cerritos
Street, east of Euclid Street)
74-491
City Ha.ll., A--_heim, Calif0.rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES .-May 14., 19.74.~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNClL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNClL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-230 duly passed and adopted.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT..~. LEASE OF CITY-OWNED LAND: On.motion by Councilma~u Pebley,
seconded by Councilman Thom, Council consideration of authorization of an
amendment to a lease of City-owned land between the City of Anaheim and Richard
E. and Margaret A. Duffy, was continued one week (May 21, 1974) for additional
information. MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondencewas ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom:
a. Orange County Board of Supervisors - Resolution No. 74-587 -
Endorsing the application for Countywide MobileIntensive Care Paramedic
Program.
b. Orange County Board of Supervisors - Resolution No. 74-643 -
Appointing Supervisor Diedrich to meet with the representatives of the police
chiefs of Orange County in aneffort to determine whether the Orange County
Intelligence' Unit can be established with County funding with controls that
are satisfactory to the Board and the pOlice chiefs of Orange County.
c. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - April 18,
1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE .NO. 3294: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3294 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAREIMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.. (72-73-51 (1), (2), (3) - R-N-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3294 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3295: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3295 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-48 - C-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3295 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3296: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3296 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
HUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69 (68) - M-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3296 duly passed and adopted.
74-492
City H~ll.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - .May 14, .197.4~ 1:.3~ p.~..
ORDINANCE NO. 3297: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3297 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-42 - C-i)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3297 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3300: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3300 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHAHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51 (4)& (5) - R-H-22,000)
REPORT - UPDATING OF BUILDING CODE~ NOISE AND ENERGY .INSULATION: RepOrt received
May 6, 1974, from the Building Division regarding Building Code changes with
reference to noise and energy ~nsulation, was reviewed by the City Council.
In answer to Council questioning, Chief Building Inspector Dan Van Dorpe
advised that at the present time, no additions to the staff are anticipated as
result of enforcement of future noise, insulation standards which will be applied
to multi-dwelling unit buildings and to exterior walls of residential structures
within the noise critical areas, however it would depend upon the volume of
construction at the time. Regarding Senate Bill 277, by which the Health and
Safety Code has been amended to require that all local code enforcing jurisdic-
tions within the State enforce standards for energy insulation of residential
buildings effective February 25, 1975, he reported that the 1975 date was the
date adopted by the State in order to allow developers, manufacturers, etc.,
some time for implementation. He pointed out that by amending the Municipal
Code to implement these procedures which will be a part of the State Law, local
people will be more aware of these requirements, which will facilitate Building
Division operations.
On the recommendations of the Chief Building Inspector, Councilwoman
Kaywood moved that the report on Building Code changes be ordered received.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SALARY RESOLUTION - COMMUNITY RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE:
Pursuant to request of Councilman Seymour made at the May 7, 1974 meeting, for
analysis and study of the position of Community Relations Representative, for
which recruiting was conducted in 1970 but never filled, Mr. Davisbriefed his
report dated May 14, 1974 (copies furnished each Council Member), noting that
if the position is to be filled at this time, certain modifications should be
made as recommended by the Personnel Director. He advised that the basic
change would be to allow for substitution of actual experience in the role,
rather than limiting applicants to those with the required college education,
essentially on a year-for-year basis. ~
Mr. Davis explained the proposed salary level for the position, the
recommendation being to modify the salary level upward to reflect the higher
qualifications now required of the classification and to reflect inflation
since 1970. He further explained some of the limitations and restrictions if
Manpower Funds were used to finance the position, two of which are the individual
must be unemployed for at least 30 days and come from a certain descriptive
area of the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-231: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-231 for
adoption, as recommended by the Assistant City Manager, and directed the Manager's
Office to report to Council with a list of potential candidates for the position.
Refer to Resolution Book.
~ III III _ I I ~1~1 I I II III · . I ~1 III1~1~ I , I · Jl
74-493
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~. 1974.~ 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-491 AND ESTABLISHING A NEW CLASSIFICATION.
(Community Relations Representative)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-231 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-232: On report and recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman
Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-232 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EXTEN-
SION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, CONSISTING OF ELECTRIC LIGHT, HEAT AND
POWER LINES 'AND WORKS, IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISONCOMPANY IN SAID PORTIONS OF SAID CITY. (CONDEMNA-
TION, NO. 9 - MOHLER DRIVE AREA)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas. and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-232 duly passed and adopted.
CONVE~SE-DAVIS~.AG.REEMF/qT~ CIVIC CENTER~ PHASE NO'.' II: On report and recommendation
of the City Attorney, Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council approve
letter agreement between the City of Anaheim and Converse-Davis, the company
who did initial soil work for Phase No. I of the Civic Center Project, to
proceed with additional soils work in connection with Phase No. II of the
project, for anamount not to exceed $7,000. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Upon report that the
parties involved could not all be present at the meeting originally planned
for this ,week, the City Attorney was instructed to reschedule said meeting
with the Orange Unified School District and representatives'of Anaheim Hills,
Inc., for an evening during the following week which would be convenient for
all.
JOINT MEETING - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT AND MUNiCIPAL AGENCIES: Mr. Davis
reported that letter dated May 13, 1974, had been received from the Anaheim
chamber of Commerce (copies furnished each Council Member) requesting a Joint
meeting with the City Council of Anaheim and other councils and chambers of
commerce in North Orange County, plus representatives of the Orange County
Transit District, to discuss the OCTD proposal for a one percent sales tax
increase for mass rapid transit. He suggested said meeting might be combined
with the meeting scheduled May 29, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Santa Aha Council
Chambers with Assemblyman Briggs.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Assistant City Manager requested an Executive Session after
today's Council meeting.
CABLE TELEVISION:FRANCHISE~ Mr. Davis briefed communications dated May 10, 1974
from.John W. Atwood, President and General Manager of Theta Cable Television,
setting forth certain points in the City of Anaheim's proposed franchise to
which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has taken exception. He
advised that it is the position of the staff that the City should attempt to
make itsposition felt by going through political channels in order to arrive
at a definitive conclusion in the matter.
74-494
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, !974~. 1:.30 P'M'
Mr. Davis called attention to service requests received from residents
of the Santa Aha Canyon area (West=idge Development) who are experiencing
inadequate television reception and noted that the operator of the Master
Antenna Cable System has gone out of. business, and that the City has applied
for special permit from the FCC, although they have not yet responded.
The City Council concurred with the position taken by the staff and
directed that the matter be pursued as set forth by Mr. Davis, without placing
the City in a litigation position.
PROPOSITIONS 1 AND 2 - JUNE PRIMARY ELECTION: Councilwoman Kaywood recommended
that the City Council support Propositions 1 and 2, coming before the electorate
on the J~ne Primary Election ballot; Proposition 1 would provide the City with
funds for development of public parks; Proposition 2 would provide bond fund
monies, thereby allowing local governments to save a percentage of the cost of
construction of local water treatment, disposal facilities and water reclamation
projects.
RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-233 AND 74R-234: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
Nos. 74R-233 and 74R-234 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-233: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ENDORSING PROPOSITION 1 IN THE JUNE 4, 1974 ELECTION CON-
CERNING THE RECREATIONAL LAND BOND ACT.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ENDORSING PROPOSITION 2 IN THE JUNE 4, 1974 ELECTION CON-
CERNING THE CLEAN WATER BOND LAW OF 1974.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-233 and 74R-234 duly passed
and adopted.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - CITY ACCOUNTING PRACTICES: Councilman Seymour briefly reported
a meeting held with Finance Director M. R. Ringer regarding the poasible updating
of the City's money management procedures, and thereupon moved that the Finance
Director and the City Manager be instructed to seek proposals from national
accounting firms having offices within Orange County for an analysis and review
and to make recommendations for the updating of City accounting practices.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
SIDEWALK REPAIRS: In response to question of Councilman Seymour regarding conditions
ofsidewalks along Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Streets, Assistant City Manager
Robert Davis reported that the City staff has been working with School Safety
Officials for an analysis of'the total areas which should'be included in a
general policy for use of gas tax funds, under certain limited conditions, to
make necessary repairs, and that a recommendation to the City Council would be
forthcoming in a few weeks from the City Engineer.
REHEARINGS - COUNCIL MEMBER LIABILITY: At the request of Councilman Pebley, the
following memorandum was read by the Deputy City Clerk and. ordered spread in
full in the Minutes as follows; and the City Attorney'was requested to report
in writing on personal liability of Council Members with reference to rehearings.
74-495
City Ha!l, Aa-beim,,~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ,May l.4, 1974,.,1:30
'~lay 6, 1974
TO: ALAN WATTS
FROM: CALVIN PEBLEY
Mr. Watts, I would like to direct a few questions to you regarding my
personal liability formatters that the Council has decided to rehear.
I am very'concerned and would like you to tell me whether or not I can
be held personally 'liable for decisions by the Council in the event any
applicant before the City for a tract map, variance, re-classification or
any Other matter, decides to bring suit against the Council, because of
the Council's decision.
I have discussed this with my personal attorney and he tells me that
Councilmen and other City employees making decisions of this nature can
be held personally liable if the City is sued. My attorney told me that
personal liability can be established if it is shown that there is any
harassment, 'prejudice or a decision made for no substantial reason. My
attorneyalso told me that prejudice and harassment can be established
by reviewing the minutes from past hearings and the'voting records on
matters that are to be reheard.
What I want you to tell me is the law on this subject as it applies to the
rehearings that are coming up before the Council during the next several
meetings.
If you are unable to do this, it is my feeling that you should bring in
extra help or someone who can give definite answers to these questions, as
I feel we have'the right to know exactly what the extent of our liability
can be.
According to my attorney, these matters hinge on what he referred to as
vested rights and prior commitments by the Council to'the various
applicants."
CITY ATTORNEY'S RmPORT - RE~F~iRING ON RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-36~ GENERAL PLAN
AMEN~.NO.'130AND ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT NO. 113: Reference was made to
memorandum report dated May 14, 1974, from the City Attorney with regard to
reheariag on Reclassification No. 73-74-36, General Plan Amendment No. 130
and Environmental Impact. Report No. 113, scheduled for 7:00 P.M. this date,
and Mayor Thom requested that said report be discussed at the public hearing
this evening.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to Executive Session.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. NOTION CARRIED. (4:56 P.M.)
RECESS:, The City CounciI returned from Executive SeSsion and recessed to 7:00
P.M.', on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded byCouncilman Thom. (5:30
P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 7:20 P.M.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas (entered at 7:40 P.M.)
and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY cLERK: Ltnda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
74-496
City..Hal!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May. 14. t 1974.~...1:30 P.M.
Councilman Thom indicated that the City Council delayed the start of
this rehearing pending the attendance of two.members, however, since a quorum is~
established, he deemed it appropriate to proceed and outlined the following
order for the rehearing:
1. Synopsis of City Attorney's opinion regarding "vested rights".
2. Brief background of the zoning actionby the Development Services
Department.
3. Presentation of new evidence by the Applicant for the rehearing,
David A. Reed, Jr. 4. Members of the public at-large who wish to address the City Council.
5. Presentation and rebuttal by the developer.
REHEARIN~ - GENERAL PLAN AMEND~ NO.~.~13D; RECLASSIFICATIONNq. 73.-74-36;
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 113: To consider updating the Anaheim General
Plan relating to the area generally located between La Palma Avenue and the
Riverside Freeway and Euclid Street and Brookhurst Street; said reclassification
submitted by Brigham Young University, requesting PC zoning to proceed with
various types of development including condominiums, apartments, a mobile home
park, offices and neighborhood commercial center, on approximately 137 acres of
property at subject location; Environmental Impact Report No. 113 was submitted
in conjunction with'Reclassification No. 73-74-36.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to ResolutionNo. PC74-43,
recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 130 and pursuant to Resolution
No. PC74-44, recommended approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-36 and further
recommended that E.I.R. No. 113 be certified as being in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines, subject to the require-
ment that supplementary environmental impact reports be submitted with each
phase of development within the project area.
Following duly noticed public hearing held on March 19, 1974, the City
Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 130 in accordance with Exhibit Nos.
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, pursuant to their Resolution No. 74R-115 and adopted Resolu-
tion of Intent No. 74R-116 to reclassify said property to the PC Zone, subject
to 17 conditions. Environmental Impact Report No. 113 was certified by the
Council on March 19, 1974 as having been completed in compliance with the provi-
sions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines.
Request for rehearing submitted by Mr. David A. Reed, Jr., 914 Fairview
Street, was denied'at theM arch 26, 1974 Council meeting, however at the April 23,
1974 Council meeting, additional request for rehearing on'the above listed items
was submitted by Mr. Reed, together with new information, and at that time the
request for rehearing was granted subject to payment of a'$SO,00 fee for re-
advertising and said public hearing was scheduled this date.
In accordance with the protocol as outlined' by the MaYor, at the
outset of the rehearing, the City Attorney presented a synopsis of his opinion
regarding the subJectof "vested rights" in connection with this particular
zoning action.
Mr. Watts first explained that the doctrine of law which refers to
"vested rights" simply statedis the extent to which the developer may proceed
on a particular project after having had the property zoned'and after having
done something in connection with a particular development on same. The courts
have indicated that in certain instances a developer acquires what is referred
to as "vested rights" and in this event may proceed with that development and
that use of land even though the legislative body may determine that some other
use is appropriate.~ In essence, if this situation should arise, the developer
has a non-conforming use.
In relation to the case at hand, Mr. Watts advised that his conclusions,
based principally on a review of case law on this subject would be that the
developer has not acquired "vested rights" upto this point. However, the City
Attorney further related that the developer has'taken some steps, which he and
his counsel have indicated they believe do constitute sufficient facts to take
the~ within the confines of the doctrine of "vested rights" and further that
under the appropriate circumstances they would certainly use the courts to test
their theory.
74-497
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, 9a!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES ~May 14~..197.4..~..~:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts added that his opinion in a collateral matter, that of
liability as far as money damages are concerned to Council Members personally
and to the City, is that there is little or no possibility that such damages
could be collected. He advised that this opinion is based on the authorities
as he understands them and on statutory authority in the Government Code.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefly described the location of subject
property and noted that the majority of the area is still within the jurisdic-
tion of the County of Orange; a small portion being within the City of Anaheim
and zoned R-A; and the County'zoning on the remainder is R-4.
Mr. Roberts s-mm~rized that the developers have submitted a request
for an amendment to the General Plan and in conjunction with that have also
presented various elements required in the planned community zoning process.
Together with a General Plan Amendment, there is also submitted a request for
r~classification to the PC Zone under which the appropriate City of Anaheim
zones to implement development in the various planned community areas would
be proposed.
Using a site plan of subject property, Mr. Roberts described the
existing~surrounding land uses. He advised that the predominant land use
proposed by the developer would fall into the low-medium density residential
category. They propose to construct single-family attached dwelling units to
be sold on a condominium basis. In addition, the development plan indicates
that a 33-acre mobile home park is proposed to be constructed immediately
adjacent to the Riverside Freeway. A small concentration of apartments (4½
acres) is proposed Just west of the Martin Luther Hospital complex and a 15-
acre office park would be constructed at the northeast corner of the project.
There is another commercial area proposed immediately north of La Palma
Avenue - a 3½-acre neighborhood commerical facility. He pointed out that 9.2
acres adjacent to the school and park site are intended to be developed as a
City park facility. Mr. Roberts described the various City of Anaheim zones
intended to implement development of the project areas, which are the same as
reported at the public hearing held on March 19, 1974. He briefly described
the circulation element submitted, essentially that Romneya Drive be extended
from its present terminus to the west and southwest to intersect with La
Palma Avenue and is intended to serve as the primary arterial highway for
circulation needs of the project area; street sections of this portion of
Romneya Drive to have a 88-foot right-of-way with a 12-foot planted median
strip.
Mr. Roberts indicated that when these proposals originally came
before the Planning Commission, the net density requestedfor the project was
12.7 units per acre. The City Planning Commission recommended that the
General Plan Amendment and reclassification be approved provided that the
developer reduce the density to 12 units to the acre, which would be consistent
with what the Planning Commission has recommended and approved for planned
unit development. The developer subsequently submitted revised plans which
indicate a density of 12 units to the net acre and these were recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City
Council on March 19., 1974.
Mr. David A. Reed, Jr., 914 Fairview Street, Appellant for the
rehearing, referred to the request presented in his'brief that a verbatim
transcript'of the entire proceedings of this'rehearing be prepared, to which
the Mayor advised that the policy of the Council is to record a synopsis of
proceedings in theM inures as prepared by the City Clerk.
Councilman Sneegas entered the Council meeting. (7:40 P.M.)
Mr. Reed offered to present additional information corroborating
the City Attorney's opinion on "vested rights", however the Mayor requested
that he confine his remarks to the new evidence which had not been presented
at the first hearing relative to General Plan Amendment No. 130, Reclassifica-
tion No.' 73-74-36 and Environmental Impact Report No. 113.
74-498
City Hall, Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 2974, !:30 P.M.
In connection with Environmental Impact Report No. 113, Mr. Reed
presented several criticisms of the process itself of E.I.R. approval, concern-
ing primarily the following:
1. That adjacent governmental jurisdictions, namely the City of
Fullerton, should have rights in such E.I.R. review process since the project
will have impact on them as well.
2. That the draft E.I.R. No. 113 should have been prepared by
Development Services Department of the City of Anaheim with data received from
the developer and with input from other governmental agencies. There is no
indication from Envista that this report was prepared for Development Services
Department or that any standards were set by the City for them in preparation
of said E.I.R.
3. Submitted in evidence was a sample copy of E.I.R. Guidelines from
the City of Fullerton, which Mr. Reed contended follow and adopt exactly the
guidelines for processing of E.I.R.s as promulgated by the Office of the State
Secretary of Resources.
4. Ail evidence and comments submitted at public hearings should be
included in the final environmental impact report document.
The Mayor interjected that further commentary on the technique of
preparation and processing of E.I.R.s would not be pertinent to the rehearing
at hand and requested that Mr. Reed present the new evidence which forms the
basis of approval for this rehearing.
Mr. Reed expressed the opinion that the E.I.R. did not address itself
adequately to alternatives for the subject property, and in particular a R-1
use of said property. He presented statistics which were computed on the basis
of the Matreyek Homes, Inc., sales brochure which he contended indicates a
legal maximum population density of 16,945 people in the project and even with
zero population growth standards he contended that the development could produce
1,851 more people than the figures given by Matreyek Homes, Inc. Further he
advised that since the condominium estate owner does have the right to divest
himself of this property, the developer retains no control as to how many
people will be living in the area.
Mr. Reed exhibited an overlay map of subject property which he had
prepared himself and indicated this to be the plan which the area residents
find more reasonable. He pointed out the differences between his plan and the
site development plans proposed by Matreyek Homes, Inc. These changes were
basically an expansion of the C-1 area and realignment of the through streets
to provide for traffic signals at Romaeya Drive and Euclid; at the end of
Romaeya Drive and extension of Chippewa; andat La Palma Avenue and the exten-
sion of Chippewa.
.Mr. Reed expressed objection to the location of the proposed commer-
cial center on the applicant's plans on the basis that this use would not
enhance the property rights of the R-1 homeowners in the westerly tract, but
would detract from them. Further he noted thatthere are two existing schools
in the immediate area, which might be affected if liquor were permitted to be
sold in this commercial center.
Mr. Reed stressed that the R-1 property owners chose to purchase a
home and to live in single-family dwellings. He noted that apartment houses
are defined as three or more dwelling units attached together to form a structure
and consequently all building referred to as condominiums in this plan are in
effect apartment houses under the State Law, no matter what the ownership
situation may be. He indicated that in his opinion the fact that a variance is
required to construct these units implies that this is poor planning practice.
Mr. Reed outlined the proper sound abatement procedure which should
be used on the north property line to protect adjacent properties in-lieu of
the hard wall proposed.
In reference to General Plan Amendment No. 130, Mr. Reed questioned
how many times per year the General Plan can be amended from the standpoint of
acquiring new land into the City.
74-499
City Hall~ Amahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - May 14~. 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts replied that there is a provision in the State Planning
Act that provides a General Plan may be amended three times per year, however
the question as to whether or not that provision applies to Charter Cities has
not yet been resolved in the courts.
Mr. Reed advised that he employed the definitions of terms in his
evidence which are used in the Health and Safety Code and Title 25 of the
Housing Law. He further gave descriptions of apartment houses and dwelling
units as defined in the Government Code.
Mayor Thom questioned Mr. Reed's objective in this discussion, and
Mr. Reed responded that he is trying to establish that an attached dwelling
unit has been referred to in E.I.R. No. 113 as though it were a single-family
residence when in fact it is not. Further he reiterated his remark in regard
to General Plan Amendment No. 130, that. more than three amendments to the
General Plan had been enacted by the City of Anaheim within one year's time
period and no attempt to restrict such amendments to three per year has been
made by the City.
In.regard to the subject of reclassification from the R-A to the PC
Zone, which was requested via Reclassification No. 73L74-36, Mr. Reed stated
that this essentially permits every type of zoning to be imposed upon R-1
district zoning. (Mr. Reed submitted a copy of a conversation between himself
and Zoning Supervisor Roberts, within which conversation Mr. Reed stated his
thoughts regarding the PC Zone. Said Report was reviewed by Council and
returned to Mr. Reed.)
Because there are so many elements to the PC Zone, according to
Mr. Reed, it is neither a zone nor is it a guideline. He remarked that he
would prefer to see the PC Zone more clearly specified in accordance with his
suggestions so that the public might readily understand the concept. Mr. Reed
related that the fact that Ordinance No. 2792 makes R-i, R-2 and R-3 all sub-
ject to the PC Zone and therefore accessory uses to this zone, places a burden
on the people to keep track of what is going on and is not in conformance with
what may be considered uniform or even appropriate zoning. He felt that this
type of zoning procedure places all residential property under duress, inspire
of the rights guaranteed each individual by the Constitution of the United
States.
Mr. Reed emphasized that he objects to the PC Zone on the major
point that when anindividual moves into an area which is zoned R-i, the
Government Codes provide him with protection to prevent penetration into that
R-1 area.
Mr. Reed further related the history of attempts made on the City's
part for providing a park in his immediate neighborhood and suggested that the
City consider a joint powers agreement between the City and the School District
to provide a park and additional facilities at the John Marshall School site.
In summary, Mr. Reed advised that he would recommend that the traffic
from 'the project be routed according to his plan so that commercial traffic
flows to La Palma Avenue as quickly as possible; that the sound barrier situa-
tion be designed so as to consider the City of Fullerton as well as Anaheim;
that an alleyway be constructed immediately to handle the drainage from subject
property.
At the conclusion of Mr. Reed's presentation, there being no further
questions or discussion from Council, the Mayor asked if anyone else wished to
address to address the Council.
Mrs. Joanne Colwell, 951 Fairview Street, referred to'the Minutes of
the March 19, 1974 hearing on these matters and the fact that these state the
letter from the AmaheimElementary School District was not submitted at that
time. She pointed out that a letter from the Superintendent of the Anaheim
School District, Mr. Brier, was submitted prior to the March 19, 1974' hearing,
at the time of the February 20, 1974 Planming Commission hearing and is shown
as Item No. M-1 in the appendix to E.I.R. No. 113.
74-500
City Ha~l~ Ana~eim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Colwell further presented statistics regarding traffic generators,
obtained from the State of California, Business and Transportation Agency,
regarding various types of projects in San Diego. Her statistics indicate the
araffic projections in E.I.R. No. 113 to be much lower. She submitted the
studies for Council information. She related that her main concern is the type
of problems which a huge development of this sort will cause in the inmediate
area. She advised that E.I.R. No. 113 did not take into consideration the
traffic situation on Brookhurst Street, whereas she felt these problems should
be discussed and solutions thought out prior to construction of such a large
project.
Mrs. David A. Reed, Jr., 914 Fairview Street,'read and resubmitted
the statement previously given at the hearing of March 19, 1974, regarding the
John Marshall School and the number of children in that attendance area who
must daily cross La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street to get to school, as
well.as statistics indicating the numbers of children involved in after school
and summer recreational activities at John Marshall School, for which no school
crossing guards are provided.
Mrs. Donna Haney, 1326 Jasmine, objected to the proposed project on
the basis that the additional traffic generated and the street circulation plan
would prove dangerous for children attending the John Marshall School.
Mr. John S. Clough, Civil Engineer, representing the Forest Lawn
Association, advised that they wished to bring to Council's attention two
points relative to traffic generation and the planned flow of traffic which
were addressed in more detail at the original hearing on March 19, 1974, namely
that the currently approved conditions for the proposed development prohibit a
left-turn at the intersection of Medical Center Drive and Euclid. The only
solution recommended to alleviate the situation is construction of a street
through the existing medical center to accommodate the flow of traffic to
Euclid, to a point at which a left-turn could be made. He advised that his
firm is unalterably opposed to this solution of the problem and that they do
plan to resist it by all means available to them. In addition, he advised that
the traffic study accompanying the E.I.R. is not sufficient in their opinion
because it did not take into account the existing traffic volumes. Hr. Clough
recommended that subject project not be given final approval until adequate
solutions to these problems are found.
Reverend Father Richard Gibb, 1922 West La Palma Avenue, representing
20 members of the Servite Fathers who live immediately adjacent and south of
subject property, concurred with Mr. Reed that the definition of the type of
dwelling units which would be allowed should be clarified so as to preclude the
possibility that as many as four to seven thousand people might eventually
reside on subject property. He referred to the traffic congestion and scarcity
of open space and advised that the Servite Fathers are concerned that human
conditions prevail once the proposed development is complete, and that the
structures proposed not turn into prefabricated slums. He referred to the man-
date for good City planning with respect to human living conditions presented
to the City Council at the last Municipal election and advised that he hoped
every effort would bemade to keep the density down and to provide the necessary
open space areas.
Mr. Ben Bay, 2148 West Grayson Avenue, advised that he lives within
one City block of subject property. He referred to the submission at the last
Council hearing, March 19, 1974, of a petition of protest with signatures of
557 Anaheim residents opposed to Reclassification No. 73-74-36, requesting to
rezone the property to permit a density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
At this time, Mr. Bay advised that he wished to reinstate the previous
protest petition to be considered in this rehearing. He s-mm~rized the basis
for objection cited in that petition as being density, traffic congestion,
safety for the local school children, the impact on the schools from the develop-
ment which will result in bussing of students, and the potential blight which
may occur because of lack of a perpetual maintenance trust to guarantee that
the new project will not deteriorate. Further Mr. Bay pointed out that Environ-
mental Impact Report No. 113 throughout the proceedings has been challenged as
to its objectivity, accuracy and completeness. He urged the Council, if they
had any reasonable doubt about E.I.R. No. 113 that they vote to refer said
report back to the City Planning Commission for reexamination.
74-501
City Hall~ Am~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May. 14~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone else in opposition to the proposed reclass-
ification wished to address the Council and there being no response, offered
the proponents an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Samuel Crowe, Covington and Crowe, 1047 West Sixth Street,
Ontario, California, noted that Council is of course aware that on March 19,
1974, the AnaheimCity Council took an action which is now subject to rehearing.
He advised chat there is an extremely important legal question pertaining to
this rehearing and that he does notshare the City Attorney's opinion as
presented earlier that the developer, Matreyek Homes, Inc., has not established
'bested rights" in connection with subject property. He remarked that the
issue raised by one of the Council Members relative to personal liability in
regard to this case has not been their contention, however they do assert that
there is a strong question of liability to the City by virtue of any action
taken to change or alter the decision given on March 19, 1974.
Mr. Crowe referred to the letter dated May 9, 1974, addressed to the
City Attorney in which the various steps taken by Matreyek Homes, Inc., and
the costs thereby incurred subsequent totheir reliance on this decision are
setforth. He related that one key factor in this situation is the fact that
pursuant to City requirements, the developer initiated annexation proceedings
to bring the property into the City boundaries, consequently the property
camiot be returned to the original owner with the same covenants, i.e.,
County of Orange R-4 zoning.
Mr. Crowe introduced Mr. Ralph Martin of Walter Richardson Associates,
whom he explained would address the following seven points which are repre-
sentive, in Mr. Crowe's opinion, of the major areas of contention, based on
the presentation made by the appellant:
1. That E.I.R. No. 113 was improperly adopted.
2. That inadequate analysis of R-1 use was presented.
3. That there is a possibility of alcoholic beverages being sold or
served on a portion of subject property.
4. That there was an inadequate traffic study conducted.
5. That the General Plan was improperly amended.
6. The indication that the R-1 property owners have an inherent
right to R-1 development in surrounding areas.
7. The school problem.
Hr. Martin, Walter Richardson Associates, 230 East 17th Street,
Costa MeSa, referredto the overlay prepared by Mr.' Reed and compared this
with Matreyek Homes, Inc., development plan proposal which was also posted in
the Council Chambers. He advised that the indication shown on Mr. Reed's
overlay which purports that subject property is surrounded by single-family
residential ho~es is not entirely correct. He commented that'to the north,
the Riverside Freeway provides an impenetrable barrier between subject property
and any R-1 homes. Further he indicatedthat they didnot feel, in further
connection with this contention, that there is a strong relationship between
50% of the property cited as surrounding single-family development and the
project.
In response to Mr. Reed's comments relative to the preparation of
the E.I.R. by a professional firm and not by the City of Anaheim Development
Services Department, Mr. Martin reported that this is an acceptable situation
and that such an E.I.R. can be then affirmed by action of the governmental
agency. In this instance he noted that E;I.R. No. 113 has been affirmed by
both the City Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Martin expressed the opinion that there is some lack of under-
standing as to the nature of the project and as to the impact on the surrounding
residential and non-residential areas. The most infla-~mtory element discussed
deals with the population projections. He indicated that there is a fundamen-
tal problem in the use of the 7,000 population figure for this project as
devised by a structural analysis of the Long Beach City Building Code, as that
number has no validity in terms of the actual population projections for the
proposed development, but is rather a legal limitation imposed by State law.
74-502
Cit: Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 197A~ 1:30 P.M.
To perceive an accurate picture of the potential population numbers,
Mr. Martin suggested that the best method would be to observe a like-kind of
development which is already existing. He noted that. there are several such
developments in Orange County which provide an excellent model. For comparison
purposes, Mr. Martin advised that a survey of single-family detached houses in
this City indicates an average of 3.5 people per dwelling unit; assuming that
670 dwelling units could be constructed on subject 137 acres, this would
generate 2,348½ people. According to the population figures established in
the type of unit planned for this project, there would be an average of 2.2
people per dweliing unit, or a total projected population of 2,911. For those
who would propose no growth at all, Mr. Martin advised that the pressures of
land use surrounding subject property and economics dictate that some other
use be made of the property than agricultural.
Mr. Martin stated that there was an illusion made that the PC Zone
does not offer any'protection of inherent rights to the R-1 property owners.
In his firms' experience in 125 other cities, Mr. Martin reported that he has
never seen a PC Zone which offers as much assurance or protection that what is
presented is what actually will be built as there is in the City of Anaheim.
In further regard to the inference made that by some manipulation or confusion
of terms more apartment unitsthan originally presented would be constructed,
Mr. Martin reiterated that the vast bulk of the project is intended as for-
sale housing, that the apartment complex is limited to 3.5 acres.
In terms of school age population, Mr. Martin pointed out that the
traditional single-family detached unit would generate 1½ pupils or 1,006½
students if the property;were so developed; and that 2/10 pupil per dwelling
unit in the proposed type of development would be generated for a project
total school population of 240.
Mr. Martin related that it is fear of what might happen which compels
people to sign petitions, and in this instance the people do not understand
the difference between a traditional single-family development and the Matreyek
Homes, Inc., proposal. He stated that the market projections for these units
indicate that they will attract owners primarily who wish to change their life
styles from people already living within the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Martin reiterated that the traffic circulation pattern shown on
the site development plan was developed in order to alleviate an already
existing problem to the west of subject property, and that the developer would
have preferred a more secluded inwardly orientated type of development with
mini~ml entrance and exit points.
In connectionwith the remark that this project could deteriorate
within ten years of'itsconstruction, Mr. Martin described the alternative,
stating that if 670 single-family homes were built, the City would have to
contend with 670 separate policies regarding maintenance. In comparison, the
type of development proposedvests maintenance responsibility into its homeowner's
association, which would be a legally established corporate entity. Further
the condominium regulations which would be established would'require that any
decline in maintenance would become a tax lien against the property. Further
he noted that the apartment'complex and mobile home park similarily would have
maintenance responsibilities vested in one entity.
In regard to the purported non-objectivity of E.I.R. No. 113, Mr.
Martin remarked that the report, prior to certification, was the subject of
close scrutiny by the City staff which represents the people of the City of
Anaheim and therefore must have some degree of objectivity.
In conclusion, Mr. Martin stated that he believes this project to be
a good development which has been approved by the City staff, City Planning
Commission and City Council, who have evidently understood the proposal, and
the developer would like to proceed on the basis of that confidence.
Mr. Crowe briefly stated that his firm, pursuant to approval by the
City on March 19, 1974, has entered into a contract with the architect who has
in turn incurred considerable expense; that they have also entered into a
contract with the engineer; that they have completed financing arrangements;
and they have completed annexation proceedings as required by the City.
74-503
City ~?...ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Further Mr. Crowe advised that the original owners of the property
are threatening legal action against the developer, should the decision pre-
viously indicated be changed as a result of this hearing.
Mr. Jim Christiansen, Matreyek Homes, Inc., related the events and
requirements in connection with the 9 acres proposed for park development,
which has been the object of negotiation between the City and his firm. He
indicated that it has been brought to their attention during these negotiations
that the potential developer of the Brigham Young University property had
inherited an obligation to provide this property at the price which the City
would have paid for it many years ago. He indicated that this obligation has
been acknowledged and handled honorably, and that his firm in turn would
expect to be treated with the same accord by the governmental agency which
represents the City of Anaheim.
Mrs. Ruth Humphrey, 1176 Holly Street, advised that her lot immediately
adjoins subject property, and that she had lived in her home for approximately
19 years. She stated that the neighbors in her immediate vicinity who have
experienced many inconveniences over the years due to the agricultural use of
subject property now view the proposed development as an asset to the area
which will also solve these long-standing problems. She remarked that she
particularly liked the idea of a greenbelt directly behind her home rather
than an individual's rear yard'and felt that the maintenance responsibility
for the green areas as proposed would be a better arrangement and would prove
to be more attractive and consistent than the quality of maintenance observed
at single-family homes in the immediate surrounding tracts. She also stated
that she favored the fact that these proposed dwelling units will be sold for
more than most of the homes in the surrounding area are worth.
With respect to the John Marshall School, Mrs. Humphrey pointed out
that she did not think the student population of the proposed project would
overwhelm that school attendance area, noting that school enrollment is
steadily decliming. Further she pointed out that with development as proposed,
both the City and School District will receive a great deal of additional tax
monies, more than they would from single-family homes.
Mrs. Humphrey stated, that she had confidence in the abilities of the
Planning Commission and various City departments, that they would not have
approved this plan if it were not acceptable. She urged the City Council to
be objective in their decision and to consider those property owners who are
long-time residents of the area and who are in favor of the proposed project.
She requested those present in favor of the project to stand for Council
edification~and submitted a petition with the names of approximately 27 property
owners in'favor of said reclassification, General Plan Amendment and environmen-
tal impact report.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mrs. Humphrey stated that she
approves of the project as it is proposed, but would have no objection to a
loweringof the density.
Mr. Peter Thurston, Attorney representing the Brigham Young University,
noted that prior to development of this property, proceedings were initiated
to annex same to the City of Anaheim and consequentlythe zoning was changed
from the'County of Orange R-4 Zone. He stated that he felt the developers and
property owners are entitled to rely on an action taken by the City Council.
Mrs. Isabel Costello, 1235 North Holly, advised that she lives
adjacent to subject property and spoke in favor of the proposed project,
stating that she felt growth and change to be inevitable. She pointed out
that beer and wine are already sold at the local Stop-and-Go market which is
located one block from the John Marshall School and near Servite High School.
Mr. Anthony Costello, 1235 North Holly, stated that he felt what the
developer of subject property has proposed would enhance and upgrade the area.
He related that there is a tremendous need for development of some sort as the
74-504
City H~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -Ma~ 14.~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
area is somewhat dormant, property values are not consistent with other areas
offering the same type of homes and there is a decline in the condition of the
homes and surroundings. He felt that an objective evaluation on the part of
the area residents would permit them to understand that the neighborhood needs
to grow in order to survive.
At the conclusion of comments from the proponents of the project,
the Mayor offered the appellant a few minutes for rebuttal and s,,mm~tion.
Mr. Reed related that his presentation was based on information
found in the City of Anaheim Codes and Government documents regarding traffic
projections. Me pointed out an inconsistency as reported in'the press regarding
the capability of a developer under County of Orange R-4 zoning. He cited the
concern expressed by the City of Anaheim Traffic Engineering Division regarding
the access to the proposed development by fire trucks. He reiterated that it
is an individual's inherent right of ownershipto have the expectation of
living in a single-family dwelling unit and this is guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion and by State Law.
Regarding vested interests, Mr. Reed contended that irrespective of
the amounts of money, spent or expenses incurred by the developer, up until the
time that buildings are placed on the property he has not established '~ested
rights".
Mayor Thom closed the hearing.
During Council discussion of the project and the E.I.R., points were
raised by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour relative to noise attenua-
tion measures and the accuracy of population statistics respectively.
Mr. Ron Thompson explained the Housing and Urban Development require-
ments imposed on developers in the Santa Ana Canyon area for homes constructed
adjacent to the freeways, i.e., that the sound levels not exceed 65 dBA in the
rear yard and 45 dBA interior.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the County and City of Orange
are planning to adopt an ordinance which would permit much lower noise levels,
and that she considered this an important point since it has been proven how
detrimental higher noise levels are to the human body.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Thompson indicated that the
projected population statistics shown in E.I.R. No. 113 were reviewed by the
E.I.R. Review Committee, which is composed of representatives from various
City departments, and attention was specifically directed to the accuracy of
these projections. He advised that past population statistics for condominiums
and like 'developments in Anaheim Hills, when reviewed in comparison with
actual occupancy figures, indicate the two to be correlated rather well. He
noted that if any discrepancy or disagreement with the population projections
was indicated in the opinion of the E.I.R. Review Committee, the issue would
have been raised at the time of review.
Further information was sought by Councilman Seymour relative to
school age populationto which Mr. Thompson replied that the older projections
for single-family units versus condominiums and apartments are changing because
the family composition is changing and also because of the economic situation,
i.e., certain'segments of the population have been priced out of the single-
family detached dwelling unit category.
Councilman Seymour initiated discussion regarding the traffic patterns
proposed and in particular whether additional signalization'will be necessary
as a result of this development, to which Mr. Maddox'explained that, in general,
traffic signals are not installed until certain traffic criteria are met,
however he could foresee that a signal most likely would be necessary at the
intersection of Romaeya Drive and La Palms Avenue.
In addition, Councilman Seymour inquired into the rationale of extending
Coronet and Falmouth Avenues as proposed in view of the fact that the residents
to the west have expressed opposition to the potential increase in traffic, the
74-505
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May .14; 1.974.~ 1:30 P.M.
developer has stated a preference for a walled type of community, and the City
Traffic Engineer's study indicates a very iow traffic count from the proposed
project w~uld use these street extensions.
Mr. Thompson responded that the extensions were considered necessary
primarily to solve some of the traffic problems in the existing tract to the
west by providing alternative routes to the surrounding major arterial highways.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood's question as to why the developer
chose to propose a density of 9.6 units per acre for the luxury lake-side
condominiums rather than 8 units to the acre which is considered to be the
maximum number of units per acre which is tenable while still providing a good
living environment, Mr. Martin replied that they would prefer to construct
these units at even a higher density and that his firm does not subscribe to
the theory that 8 units to the acre is any guarantee as to the desirability of
the living environment. Rather, he remarked that it is the amenities, which
in this case will be designed into the units, and the use of the open space
instead of the quanity'which provide an agreeable environment. He noted that
the 8 units to the acre figure used in planning publications refers to a broad
cross section of condominium type projects, including conversions of apartments
to condominiums and as such has no relationship with the project under discussion.
Councilwoman Kaywood disagreed with Mr. Martin, noting that when an
individual is not happy with his environment, this leads to his desire to sell
the unit and if he cannot accomplish this, then he resorts to renting. She
inquired what guarantees the City will have that rental of these units will
not take place.
Mr. Christiansen advised that, similar to R-1 subdivisions, once the
dwelling unit is sold there is no guarantee that the individual property owner
will not rent the unit. However his firm does not intend to rent but will
sell the individual dwelling units. In further answer to Council question, he
advised that the market price for the condominiums is expected to range from
$38,000 to $65,000, and that the firm feels that the market which they intend
to supply is available.
Further Council discussion centered about the 9 acres adjacent to
the John Marshall' School which the City has expressed interest in acquiring
for park development. Mr. Christiansen 'related the history of the City's
attempts to acquire this property and his firm's offer .during negotiations to
sell 6 acres of this property to the City at the value of said land 15 years
ago, which was $15,000 per acre,(plus 6% interest on this over the 15-year
period for a total price of $27,750 per acre. This is considerably less than
his firm paid for same. The remaining 3 acres are to be purchased at today's
appraised value since these were not involved in the original condemnation
proceedings. In connection with this discussion, Mr. Roberts reported that
the park in-lieu fees for the 137 acres to be developed would amount to
approximately $195,000.
During the discussion Councilman Sneegas pointed out his observations,
namely that to his. recollection of'the March 19, 1974 hearing, no new evidence
hadbeen presented at this hearing. In regard to'the traffic projections
presented in documents supplied by Mrs. Colwell, he 'remarked he had reviewed
these and found the shopping centers in'those studies contained some unusual
traffic generators such as a Pacific Telephone Business Office, Post Office,
etc., and were far beyond the scope of what is proposed for the shopping
center in subject project.
With reference to the potential rental of the proposed condominiums,
Councilman Sneegas noted that inhis experience with the R-1 tract to the
west, from which much of the opposition to this project has been generated,
there are more than the average number of homes rented in that particular
tract. In addition he felt that many of these homes leave something to be
desired as far as maintenance is concermed. He further remarked that there is
a basic need for additional housing in the County and in particular for the
types of housing proposed in this development and that construction of these
unitswill make more housing opportunities of all kinds available. He stated
74-5~J6
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 1974~ 1:..~0 P.M..
his disapproval of governmental controls over the way people can use their
property and pointed out that this particular property owner.can no longer use
his property for agricultural purposes, primarily because of the very fact that
homes are existing adjacent to it.
In conclusion, Councilman Sneegas stated that the land use plan under
discussion has been in preparation for a long time and has undergone many
changes, most of them upgrading the development. As a consequence, to defray
the increased costs and retain a viable project, it is necessary for the developer
to retain the densities proposed. He indicated that he was in favor of the
project following theM arch 19, 1974 public hearing and has heard no evidence
which would change his opinion that the proposed development will be an asset
to the City of Anaheim. He thereupon moved that the City Council reaffirm
their previous resolution of intent to rezone the property to the PC Zone by
taking no action at this time. Said motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Seymour, noting the apparent difficulties and costs which
would be the consequence for both the City and the developer as a result of
litigation, questioned as to how the developer might respond to perhaps deleting
or minimizing to some extent the apartment section from his sitedevelopment
plan.
Mr. Christiansen indicated that his firm would be amenable to removal
of the apartment portion and replacement of this section with condominiums,
which would lower the density to approximately 11.3 units to the acre overall,
if this would make the project more agreeable to 'the City Council. In addition,
with reference to the proposed park property, he stated that his firm could
defer payment from the City for two years.
Mr. Thompson reported that if the City Council wishes to consider the
plan with the revision outlined above, i.e., that the apartments proposed be
deleted and replaced with condominiums, it would be the Joint recomendation of
the City Engineer and Development Services Department that the north-south
street (extension of Coronet Avenue) indicated on the circulation plan to the
west of the apartment complex, be moved to the east of the proposed condominiums.
It is felt this would alleviate some of the traffic problems and still not
route the commercial traffic through the residential areas.
Councilman Seymour stated that there was one more area of concern to
him, the placement of a traffic signal at the intersection of Romneya Drive and
La Palma Avenue. He asked the City Engineer's opinion relative to making the
installation of such signal a condition of approval of the reclassification.
Mr. Maddox replied that although there is no precedent to such a
requirement on a public street, it would seem plausible. He further indicated
that he would estimate the cost of a signal installation at $35,000.
Mr. Christiansen stipulated that the developer would be willing to
share one-half of the cost of this traffic signal, provided it be installed
concurrently with the first phase of construction.
There being no further Council discussion, on the recomendation of
the City Attorney, and by general Council consent, the Mayor. determined that
the rehearing requested by David A. Reed, Jr., 914 Fairview Street, of Reclassifi-
cation No. 73-74-36, E.I.R. No. 113 and General Plan Amendment No. 130, having
been heard as scheduled, as a duly noticed public hearing,and opportunity for
presentation of evidence afforded the appellant, the Council deemed no further
action necessary in connection with E.I.R. No. 113 and General Plan Amendment
No. 130, thereby sustaining the certification of said E.I.R. and adoption of
said General Plan Amendment; and further, denied hearing of the remaining
points contained in Mr. Reed's petition.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-235: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-235 for
adoption, amending Resolution No. 74R-116 which granted Reclassification No.
73-74-36, to implement the changes in the original plans submitted by amending
and replacing the conditions of approval as follows:
74-507
City Ha.il, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MaZ 14~ 1974~..1.:30 P..M.
1. That dedication of all public streets shall be made to the City
of Anaheim in accordance with the submitted Circulation Element as amended at
the City Council meeting of May 14, 1974, in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the City Engineer and Development Services Department and with the
adopted City of Anaheim Circulation Element.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of~the Director of Public Works.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That the 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 and/or sell to the City of Anaheim the park
property at the prices and under the terms stipulated to by the developer at
the Council meeting of May 14, 1974, said fees to be paid or park land to be
acquired at the request of the City Council or within two years of the issuance
of a building permit.
7. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific
plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the
PC, Planned Community, Zone.
8. That tentative and final tract maps of subject property as
appropriate shall be submitted to and approved bythe City Council and then
be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with
the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets.
10. That the center median in Romneya Drive shall be landscaped in
conformance with a landscaping plan approved by'the Superintendent of Parkway
Maintenance.
11. That a perpetual maintenance agreement, acceptable to the City
Attorney's Office, for the maintenance of-the'Romneya Drive median landscaping
shall be filed and recorded.
12. That a median, to the City of Anaheim standards, shall be
installed on Euclid Street from the Riverside Freeway to a point not less
than 100 feet south of Medical Center Drive concurrently with the first phase
of development.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accor-dance with plans and specifications on file.with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6,
provided however that the proposed mul'tiple family apartments be deleted and
replaced with condominium or PRD residential'development with a density not
to exceed 11.3 dwelling units per acre.
14. That the reclassification proceedings are granted subject to
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
15. That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as
each parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel,
provided, however, that the word "parcel" shallmean presently existing
parcels of record and any parcel or parcels approved~'by the City Council for
a lot split.
16. That traffic signals be installed at the proposed intersection
of La Palma Avenue and extension of Romneya Drive, as approved by the City
Emgineer, and that the signals shall be installed during the first phase of
construction and that the cost of signal installation shall be equally shared
by the developer and the City of Anaheim.
17. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject
prop-erty, Condition Nos. 1', 7, 8, 11, and 14, above mentioned, shall be
completed. The provisions or rights granted by-'this resolution shall become
null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied
with within one year from the date hereof, or such"further time as the City
Council may grant.
18. That Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 13, above mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Prior to voting on the foregoing resolution., Councilman Seymour
imdicated that his decision is based on the following two factors:
74-508
City Hall} Anahe.imm .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 14m 19.74} 1:.30 P.M.
1. That the previous City Council had made a commitment which has to
be honored in some form although in his opinion, the prior Council gave approval
to the project without proper voice of the people because of their unwillingness
to grant the requested evening hearing.
2. The very real possibility of a lawsuit and the costs which would
be incurred. He remarked that if the situation were different,' if for instance
he had been on the Planning Commission during review of this project, undoubtedly
he would have attempted to find the median between, no growth and the higher
densities, however since he did not have that opportunity, hepointed out that
as the representative of the people, he had negotiatedand come up with the
best alternative that could be arranged at this point, even though the conces-
sions made by the developer are small.
Councilwoman Kaywood concurred with Councilman Seymour's remarks,
indicating that the City Council is in a stalemate position as far as making
any Significant changes to the project because of commitment made by the prior
City Council.
Councilman Thom stated that he was not in favor of the project on
March 19, 1974, because of traffic and density problems and adviSed that he is.
still not satisfied with it this date because of the same factors. He ex-
pressed the opinion that the density proposed is in excess of'what good planning
indicates and he would prefer to see a plan which reflects lesser density and a
better answer to the traffic problems. He felt the amendments made this date
were a step in the right direction. He referred to his efforts to reduce the
density andadvised that although he was reluctant to give his approval, he
felt that he had no choice since the alternative would be that the City would
face a legal action.
Councilman Sneegas remarkedthat he found it difficult to substantiate
the rationale for approval of these amendments as setforth by his fellow Council
Members since the changes proposed will not substantially affect the density or
change the project appreciably. He referred to the fact that approval of the
project was given by the Planning Commissioners and by four members of the pre-
vious City Council; that it was estimated in their judgment to be a good project,
and that he concurred at that time and has not changed his opinion.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 74R-116 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 73-74-36.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-235 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Sneegas left the Council Chamber. (10:30 P.M.)
Mayor Thom thanked all' those in attendance for their time and input.
He pledged that this would be the first in a series of evening public hearings
which will be held when requested by the citizenry.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywoodmoved to adjourn to Wednesday, May 15, 1974, at
7:00 P.M., for the purpose of a Joint work session with the City Planning
Commission. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 10:35 P.M.
Deputy' C~'ty Clerk