1974/06/1174-587
City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- June .11~'1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBEP~: Kenwood, Se]mouE, Pebley, Sneezes and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alone M. Hougard
CHIEF OF POLICE: David B. Michel
FIRE CHEIF: James Riley
CITY ENGINEER: James P..Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEV~~ SERVICES': Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
RIGHT OF WAY REPRESENTATIVE: John Bruns
Mayor Thom called themeeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend McLaughlin of the Bethel Baptish Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the ASsembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting held May 2,
1974 were approved on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, secondedby Councilman
Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the
reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all 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 Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST TH~ CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $616,486.87, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
REHEARING - GENERAL PLAN ~ ~._ 1.31~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-39i VARIANCE
NO. 2581 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Ri~RT NO'. 114: To reconsider changing the land
use designation from industri~l'to~dit~ density residential for the area gen-
erally located between the easterly City limits and the Santa Ann River and
Ball Road and Cerritos Avenue; petitions for reclassification and variance sub-
mitted by Adolph J. Schutte andElizabeth Anderson for Change in zone from R-A
to R-3 and M-1 and to establish'a 504-unit apar~aent project and service station
site on subject property. E.I.R. NO. 114' was submitted in connection with
Reclassification No. 73-74-39and variance No. 2581.
The City Planning Co~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-47,
recommended approval of Gemer~lFl~m i~v~ent No. 131 in accordance with Alter-
nate "A" and said alternate was.approved by the City Council pursuant to Resolu-
tion No. 74R-149 following duly noticed public hearing held April 9, 1974.
With respect to Reclassification No. 73-74-39 and Variance No. 2581,
the City Planning Commission recommended denial pursuant to Resolution Nos.
PC74-48 and PC74-49, and the City Council followin~ duly noticed public hearing
held April 9, 1974, adopted Resolution Nos. 74R-150 and 74R-151, denying said
reclassification and variance, respectively, and certified E.I.R. No. 114 as
being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State
· Guidelines.
Request of Nelson Development Cdmpany, dated'May 9, 1974 for rehearing
of Reclassification No. 73-74-39 and Variance No. 2581, was considered by the
City Council at the meeting cfM ay 14, 1974 and rehearing subsequently granted
and scheduled this date, together with rehearing on General Plan Amendment No.
131.
The City Clerk sub~itted the following correspondence received regard-
ing the rehearing:
74-~88
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
1. Letter from Frank D. Morris, Grove Industrial Properties, dated
June 4, 1974, in support of the proposed development.
2. Communication from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Industrial
Committee and Board of Directors, dated June 6,1974, in opposition to the pro-
posed development.
3. Communication from James S. Gregg, dated May 30, 1974, indicating
opposition to the apartment project.
4. Communication from VernMonroe, dated May 17, 1974, in opposition
to the apartment project.
5. Communication from Raymond G. Simpson, Trustee and Executor of
Estate of Alice E. Simpson, deceased, dated June 1, 1974, in opposition to any
residential zoning on subject property.
6. Communication received at open meeting, June 11, 1974, from John
W. Hoskins, President, Norco Delivery Service, Inc., opposing subject application
for R-3 zoning.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the location of subject 21.5 acres
of property and advised that the Applicant is requesting R-3 zoning for the
major portion of this parcel and M-1 zoning on a 150 by i50 foot segment located
at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street, proposed to be developed
as a service station site. The remainder of the property is proposed for
apartment units at a density of 28,6 to the acre. Mr. Roberts further advised
that along with new evidence, the Applicants today are presenting revised plans
which show an apartment project which is reduced in size from the original 21.5
acre project to 17.2 acres, with a resultant reduction in the number of dwelling
units proposed from 508 to 412 units and no change in density proposed. He
noted that the two waivers originally requested under Variance No. 2581 would
still apply with the revised plans. He r~minded Council that the property
under discussion is currently not within the boundaries of the City of Anaheim
and any zoning action would be subject to completion of annexation proceedings.
He reported that the revised plans have not been reviewed by the City
Planning Commission, since it was'felt that the determination as to whether or
not they should be referred to the Planning Commi~sion should be made by the
City Council at the time of rehearing. ~
There being no Council questions, the Mayor requested the appellant
to present the new evidence.
Mr. Ken Nelson, Nelson D~velop~ant Company, advised that since the
prior hearing on this project, April 9, 1974, he has been working with some of
the land owners in the ia~a~diate area in an attempt to stem the prevalent fear
reiarding R-3 encroachment into the:N-l' Zone. He submitted written statements
dated May 31, 1974, from the owners of property adjoining subject parcel (5
acres at Winston Road; 4 acres at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Sunkist
Street - Alan R. TalC; 2.75 acres at the northwest corner of Sunkist Street and
Winston Road - A. J. Schutte) indicating that said owners agree, in the event
that subject parcel under Reclassification Petition No. 73-74-39 is developed
in accordance with the amended application, to cause their property above
described to be developed under City of Anaheim N-1 zoning or other zoning
granted by the City of Anaheim, said properties, currently under County Jurisdic-
tion are zoned R-3. Mr. Nelson explained this would effectively create a block
which would stop R-3 from moving any further south. In connection with this
revised plan, the owner of subject property is reqesting that the lower 4 acre
portion be placed into the M-1 Zone. He indicated shaded areas shown on a map
of subject property so as to illustrate the effect of this revised plan on the
area,
Mr. Nelson further stated that the apartment complex which they plan
to build is-a quality product and no criticism has been received as far as the
architectural style is concerned. He pointed out that the location of subject
property adjacent to the Orange. Freeway~akes this particular parcel an entrance
into the City of Anaheim as well as a;~Window'' into the City and as such the
proposed development would be an enhancm~nt at this particular location.
Mr. Nelson briefly outlined the development plans and projects on
properties surrounding subject parcel and in particular that Grove Industrial
Properties is developing in the N-1 Zone adjacent and have no objection to R-3
74-589 ~'~a~ ....
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Junell, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
abutting their project. A portion of the surrounding property is in the agricul-
tural preserve according to Hr. Nelson and it appears likely that this will not
be developed 'until some time in the future. He stated that Hr. Monroe who had
expressed objections at the last hearing to R-3 adjacent to M-1 has submitted
offers to purcbmse properties with a minimum down payment and 180 day escrows.
Mr. Nelson concluded that R-3 ha~ been the traditional buffer zone
between R-1 and M-1 and represents good planniffg principles. He reported that
upon checking with persons in the property management business, controlling
9,000 apartments in the Orange County area, he learned that the vacancy factor
in these is 2.01%. On investigating three apartment units located at State
College Boulevard, Sunkist Street and Ball Road, out of 614 total units, the
vacancy factor is .08%, which is indicative that this development is needed in
that location. He presented a photograph of the type of stream and landscaping
effect which is proposed for this project, which was reviewed by Council and
returned.
Mr. Kermit Dorius, Architect, 3111 Second Avenue, Corona Del Mar,
described the proposed prOject which would have a dedicated major access road
from Sunkist Street which would end in a ha-w-erhead cul-de-sac. He indicated
the location of the recreational amenities and advised that the complex would
be divided into three villages composed of two-story apartment buildings in a
garden setting with streams and landscaping. Surrounding the periphery of the
project is an alley-carport system to provide easy access as well as a buffer
between the garden area and surroundings and will also serve to alleviate any
noise problem from the freeway.
Mr. Dorius pointed out that this development would be an extension of
the apartment land use already existing on the south side of Ball Road and
pointed out that the intersection of Sunkist and Ball is predominately residen-
tial. He briefly described the two waivers requested and stated that this
would be an all adult community and therefore would place no additional burden
on the schools. He pointed out that while they will install their own recrea-
tional emenitites they will also, as 'required, pay substantial park in-lieu
fees to the City.
Mr. Frank Morris, 1785 SkY Park Circle, Irvine, indicated that he
represented the owners of two parcels on Winston Avenue and stated that they
are in favor and do support this proposed project.
The Mayor asked if anyone in opposition wished to address the Council.
Mr. Bob Inabinette, Truck and Auto Supply, 1650 Douglass Road, said
business located slightly south of subject property, stated that his firm is
opposed to the addition of high density housing to the area since it will
create traffic problems. They would prefer to see the property retained for
industrial uses.
Mr. Vern M~nroe, 5209' Sea Shore, Newport Beach, outlined his current
agreement with Donald Shaw Invest~aentfor a long-term lease of properties
adjoining subject Property and negotiations which are underway for an additional
23-acre parcel as well, these to be incorporated and developed as an industrial
park. He stated that if an R-3 development is approved and built on subject
parcel, the industrial park project will be discontinuedsince they feel this
is not compatible with industrial uses. He related that most companies leasing
in an industrial area are not willing to invest the money necessary to relocate
in same, if residential uses are in the immediate vicinity.
Councilman Pebley remarked that in his opinion if these 17 acres were
developed with the plan presented they would generate less traffic than the
same property developed to industrial uses.
Mr. Monroe emphasized that the interplay of two types of traffic,
residential and commercial-industrial would be hazardous.
Councilman Sneegas pointed out that while he concurred with Mr.
Monroe's r_~,-rks on traffic, he is also aware of the fact that the amended plan
as presented, does have soma trade-offs which are worth considering. He indica-
ted that the situation would be worse if apartments were constructed on the R-3
County zoned property below Ball Road and to the west of Sunkist, which is
designated on the City of AnaheimMaster Plan as H-1.
74-590
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Monroe stated that he felt the
proper buffer for M-1 would be a freeway, an arterial highway or strip commer-
cial.
A gentleman representing Neville Chemical Company, advised that his
company would prefer to see the integrity of the industrial area maintained.
He urged the Council to view the long-range situation of land use and protect
the industrial area.
Councilman Pebley pointed out during Council discussion of the poten-
tial traffic which would be generated by industrial uses, that the offers made
in the letters from two property owners not to proceed with development on R-3
County of Orange zoning, would solve the land use problem to some extent. He
noted that in the past, attempts at withholding City of Anaheim services to a
parcel which is developing under County zoning which the City of Anaheim finds
objectionable, have not been successful.
There being no further opposition to the proposal, the Mayor offered
the Applicant a few minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Ken Nelson remarked that itwas his understanding that Sunkist
Street was built to carry very heavy traffic, and the type of traffic is not
specified. He reiterated that the intersection of Ball and Sunkist is already
residential. Since this project is planned for adults, it is estimated that
less daytime in and out traffic will occur. Re indicated the locations of
those firms objecting to the project and contended that since these companies
are not immediately adjacent, their objections should not carry too much weight.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the 16-19 year old age group,
which would be living in the proposed apartment complex, generates a good deal
of daily traffic going to and from high schools and colleges.
Mr. Harry Knisely, Agent-for the Applicants, summarized that the
project is a good one, that the report indicate sewers and streets to be adequate
for same and that it would generateone-half million dollars Per year in revenue
to the City which compares favorably with industrial development. He reiterated
that none of the property owners in the immediate vicinity are speaking against
this proposal.
.Mayor Thom closed the hearing and noted that Council has two factors
to consider: (1.) Is the new evidence presented significant enough to warrant
a change in previous Council's decision; (2.) Did the revised plans presented
by the proponent change the complexity of the proposal to such an extent that
it should be sent back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration.
Councilman Seymour remarked that for soma time there has existed a
dispute over land use in this area, specifically as to where should the R-3
stop and M-1 begin, and that it is his opinion that the reason for this contro-
versy is the lack of firm direction regarding land use in the area. He stated
that if a line could be established now it would be beneficial, however, in
this regard, he felt the parcel at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Sunkist
to be very decisive and questioned the'owner, Mr. Talt, who was present in the
audience, whether or not he would expect to pursue the R-3 zoning on that
particular property as it is shown on the City of Anaheim Master Plan.
Mr. Talt advised that he would not be prepared at this time to say
what the best use of that property will be, he would prefer to wait until
surrounding developments and the freeway are completed.
Councilman Seymour stated that in his opinion it is incumbent upon
Council to clear up all of the unanswered questions relative to land use in
this area at this time, so as to avoid'similar confusion when other properties
develop, and if this would be accomplished it may Justify some of the trade-
offs described. However, he pointed out'that Mr. Talt has stated, that although
the City of Anaheim has had that partic'ular property master planned for R-3 he
wishes to leave his options open.
Councilwoman Kaywood observed that the subject property as it is
situated adjacent to the on-ramp of the Orange Freeway, would, in her opinion,
74-591
City flall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June Ill, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
make a miserable living environment. She pointed out specific instances where
additional insulation and sound attenuation measures have not successfully made
living enjoyable in such locations. She stated that this property is a part of
the industrial area which cannot be enlarged and she would not be in favor of
permittint encroachment into same.
During brief Council discussion, Councilman Sneegas pointed out that
he too had not considered this particular parcel to be the optimum site for an
apartment complex, however he felt that in every decision there are some gray
areas.
Councilman Seymour strongly felt that no headway could be made on .
resolving the controversy over land use in this area unless the use for the
parcel at the southwest corner of Ball and Sunkist could be resolved. He
indicated that as he visualizes it at this time it is an R-3 property and
definitely not commercial.
In answer to Council Sneegas, the City Attorney advised that when a
parcel is annexed to the City, the Councilts policy has always been that it re-
ceives the nearest City of Anaheim Zone to the existing County of Orange Zone.
Councilman Thom pointed out that his concern lies in the fact that
there is not much assurance, if any, of the H-1 property in the County's Juris-
diction; that this is not annexed property and could become R-3 upon annexation.
Mr. Watts explained, at the request of Councilman Sneegas, that the
letters of intent submitted by the property owners (Talt and Schutte) indicate
that they will take certain actions to change zoning on these properties,
however he pointed out that these chanses must be approved by the Council,
Planning Com~ission and perhaps by the Board of Supervisors. As far as the
commitment being a legal one, he advised that he did not feel that a court
would permit enforcement of a zone change through the County based on these
letters of intent, although'they may'require that the property owners put forth
their best efforts to obtain the change.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-269: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-269
for adoption, sustaining the original decision on General Plan Amendment No.
131, Reclassification No. 73-74-39, Variance No. 2581 and E.I.R. No. 114.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RE~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHRIM TAKING NO ACTION ON
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 131, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-39, VARIANCE NO.
2581 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. I14, UPON REHEARING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: KaT~ood, Seymour and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-269 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 114: To provide circulation and access
for an area bounded by the northerly extension of Grove Street to the west,
Miraloma Avenue to the north, Tustin Avenue to the northeest, The AtchiSon,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad on the southeast and La Palms Avenue to the south.
The City Plannin$ Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-97,
recommended adoption of Area Development Plan No. 114 in accordance with Exhibit
"C", modified.
Zoning SuperviSor Roberts reported that Area Development Plan No.
114, refers to 50 acres of property located generally in the northeast industrial
area between La Palms Avenue and Miraloma Avenue. The City Planning Commission,
as a result of development proposals within this tumw, diate area, initiated Area
Development Plan No. 114 to study the necessity for further circulation in this
area to provide access for acrease which is pending development. He described
the existing land uses in the i~ediate vicinity and advised that the basic
74-59~
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
purpose of this area development plan was to determine whether there is any need for
secondary roads and if so, the most reasonable and logical alignment of same to
serve the area, considering the development under construction. He noted that the
southerly half of this area, (indicated on the exhibits as Parcel "A") is under
development and a parcel map has been approved which shows street alignment in
conformity with the exhibits presented.
Mr. Roberts reported that the City Traffic Engineer estimates this
50-acre area, when fully developed, will generate 4,500 to 5,000 trips per day
and consequently a street system which would link La Palms and Miraloma Avenues
would be imperative in order to avoid overloading arterial intersections.
Using three exhibits labeled '~", "B" and "C", Mr. Roberts explained
the three alternative plans reviewed by the City Planning Commission as follow:
Exhibit '~": Provides a north-south access between La Palma Avenue
and Miraloma Avenue but does not provide a direct connection to Tustin Avenue,
nor does it preclude the developer from doing so if this is in his best interest.
Exhibit "B": Also provides a north-south connection between La Palma
and Miraloma Avenues, in addition to b~ving direct access to Tustin Avenue.
The same advantages would be obtained through the use of this exhibit, however
there are some negative aspects from the property owner's standpoint.
Exhibit "C": Exhibit "C" as modified, was drawn up on the basis of
discussion and stipulations made by the affected property owners and provides
essentially the same alignment as Exhibit '~", but specifies a 64-foot wide
street, the existing 30-foot roadway to be a portion of this street; and the
property owners on either side would dedicate 17 feet of right-of-way.
Mr. Roberts further reported that the City Planning Commission recom-
mended that the City accept the responsibility to install street improvements
including paving, curbs and gutters along the frontage of property shown as "b"
on the Exhibit . He further indicated that there is some question on the part
of one of the effected property owners, Mr.. Hurwttz regarding the legal status
of the 30-foot road easement, which that property owner would like to resolve
prior to any abandonment of the 30-foot roadway segment to the east of the pro-
posed street. He further noted that the~City would also like to retain the
necessary public utility easements in the segment proposed to be abandoned.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in
favor or in opposition to any of the three alternatives presented for Area
Development Plan No. 114.
Mr. Hurwitz, 100 West Chapman Avenue, Orange, advised that he is
owner of the parcel indicated as '%" in the area development plan alternatives.
He stated that the arrangement as outlined by .Mr. Roberts is substantially
correct, however he noted that there is no written documentation of the 30-foot
roadway easement which the City contends it holds on the southerly. 30 feet of
his property and one of his major concerns would be to settle this dispute. He
stated that his title policy indicates no deed restrictions or covenants or
easements regarding the 30-foot segment in question.
The City Attorney counseled that the City of Anaheim has acquired
easement rights Pertaining to this area from the Stearns Rancho Reservation
enacted in 1857, by which the original owners of the land now comprising the
City of Anaheim, created these reservations of varying widths depending on
section and quarter section lines for the purpose of providing roads. In 1905
these rights were conveyed by the owners of the property to the County of
Orange, and at such time as the land is annexed, it is the position of the City
of Anaheim that these rights accrue to the b~nefit of said City.
In'answer to Councilman Sey=our, Mr. Maddox advised that aside from
use as a roadway easement, the 30-foot strip in question together with the
segment to be abandoned has beenusedfor drainage purposes for a number of
years and there is a graded ditch on the site. If the easterly easement is
abandoned, he would recommend retaining the drainage easement rights as there
may be other utility easement requirements in the future.
Mr. Hurwitz took exception to Nr. Maddox's statement and indicated
that the City's contention has always been that the easement was for roadway
74-593
City Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
.purposes only and there has been no mention of drainage. Further he has no
recollection of a drainage ditch. He advised that he was willing to release his
claim to the 30 foot within the roadway and then dedicate 17 additional feet in
the interest of providing an accessway but he feels that the dispute between
himself and the City regarding the balance of the claim must be settled.
Mr. Earl Eddy, representing JED Development Company, owners of the
parcel indicated as "c" on the area development plan, stated that they favor
and would urge the Council to adopt the area development plan in accordance
with Exhibit "C", modified, since the matter of street alignment must be resolved
before they can file their parcel map for approval.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there
being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned what effect the easement agreement
would have on the 30-foot wide strip located to the east of section "B" of the
proposed street.
Mr. Roberts explained that there is no problem involved in abandoning
that segment so long as the necessary easements are retained into that area
since the drainage ditch referred to by Mr. Maddox runs from Jefferson Street
to Tustin Avenue along this strip.
Mr. Maddox added that this easterly portionwould never be required
as a roadway, that the City would want to retain rights for drainage purposes
only.
For the purpose of clearing up any confusion, at the request of the
Mayor, the City Clerk read Finding No. 6 from Planning Co~mission Resolution
No. PC74-97 aloud, which describes the stipulations madeby the owners of
properties through which portion "B" of the proposed street passes as well as
the City's responsibilities in this regard.
Mr. Watts pointed out that Mr. Hurwitz is referring to an additional
30-foot easement running along the south of his property, not shown as a portion
of section "B" of the proposed street, but easterly of sa~e. In connection
with this, Mr. Watts advised that there may be some cloud as to its title and
he would recommend that the Council set a public hearing for the purpose of
abandoning same.
Mr. Hurwitz was recognized by the Mayor and he referred to the written
testimony from previous Planning Commission hearings, during which the Planning
Commission stipulated to quit-claim all of the City's rights to this easterly
30-foot wide strip, and that no mention of retention of rights for drainage was
made at the time that the agreement was discussed with him.
Councilman Seymour felt that the real issue at hand is to establish
responsibility for. payment to Mr. Hurwitz for the use of subject easterly 30-
foot strip as a drainage easement and voiced the opinion that Mr. Hurwitz would
have to seek remuneration from the Title Insurance Company since they did not
advise him of its presence upon his obtaining title to the property.
Hr. Hurwitz stated that he felt it would be unfair for Council to
approve the area development plan prior to the resolution of his problem,
noting that he has offered to surrender his claim to the 30-foot roadway easement
to be used to develop the north-south access road as well as to dedicate an
additional 17 feet from his property.
Council~an Seymour concurred, noting that if an agreement had been
reached between Mr. Hurwitz and'the Planning Co~mission h connection with his
willingness to'dedicate certain property, that it would be unfair to act prior
to resolution of this disPute and he thereupon moved for a continuance of the
decision regarding Area Development Plan No. 114 for one week to allow the City
Attorney time to review the matter and determine whether or not the City does
wish to retaincertain rights. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION C~uRRIED.
74-594
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June liT 1974, 1:~0 P.M.
PUBLIC HFARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-52 AND VARIANCE NO. 2602: Application
by Charles A. McLuen and Doyle W. Hill for a change in zone from R-A to C-1 and
the following Code waiver to establish a small commercial center at the northwest
corner of Short Street and Kellogg Drive, abutting the Richard M. Nixon Freeway
off-ramp, was submitted together with application for exemption from requirement
to prepare an E.I.R.:
a. Minimum building setback from arterial highway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-95,
recommended that Reclassification No. 73-74-52 be disapproved and further that
subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report. Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-96, the City Planning Commission
denied Variance No. 2602.
The City Clerk submitted correspondence received from Mr. John Tynes,
Superintendent, Placentia Unified School District, dated MaY 21, 1974, indicating
opposition to Reclassification No. 73-74-52 and Variance No. 2602.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the location of subject 20,O00-
square foot property which is situated immediately adjacent to a freeway off-
ramp. He described the present condition of the property as a ravine which
would require considerable filling priOr to development. The Applicant is
requesting a C-1 Zone and has submitted plans to develop a 4,800-square foot
structure which would contain a 2,400-square foot convenience market and three
800-square foot commercial shops. The parking proposed would be in compliance
with C-1 Zone requirements. The plans indicate air conditioning equipment
would be installed on the roof and screened from the periphery of the property,
however this would be visible to residential structures located at a higher
elevation. He advised that the General Plan indicates the area to be appropriate
for low-medium density residential uses and the C-1 Zone would not implement
that type of use. In conclusion, he read the findings upon which the Planning
Commission based their denial of both reclassification and variance petitions.
During brief discussion, Councilman Pebley indicated that he could
see no other use for subject property than some type of commercial development
as it is located adjacent to a freeway would rule out apartments.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that this type of surplus
State property, which poses a problem in development, should remain the respon-
sibility of the State following the construction of a freeway, and should be
heavily landscaped.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Doyle Hill, 1416 James Way, Anaheim, admitted that this is a very
poor piece of property which presents many problems in development. He indicated
that it is a deep ravine which contains drainage channels and culverts and
subsequently the cost of improvement of the site itself would preclude the
possibility of placing a residential structure on same. He advised that he had
presented what he feels to be a reasonable plan which is compatible with the
immediate neighborhood.
Mr. Hill related that themain objections to his proposal stem from
the fear that the shopping center will become a collecting place for the children
'in the neighborhood,'primarily because of the location of the schools several
hundred yards away. On further investigation, he learned that there is objection.
also to the type of merchandise which might be soldin this type of market,
especially to liquor and adult masazin~s. In addition, there is concern that
the architecture used in this proposed market would not conform to the homes in
the immediate area.
In respect to these complaints, Mr. Hill stated tha~ the Petitioner
is willing to. accept limitations on the type of merchandise to be sold in the
store, and to architectural requirements as well, in the form of deed restric-
tions if necessary. He stated that he could see no reason why this
particular property could not be put to some use.
74-595
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, Califoruia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 1~, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor or
in opposition to the proposed reclassification and variance.
Mr. Phil Paxton, Planning Director, City of Yorba Linda, advised that
he is appearing at this hearing at the request of the Yorba Linda City Council
and also on behalf of some of the residents of that city to register opposition
to this proposal. He related that most cities face the same problem, that of
having a State highway cut through certain property, leaving a portion in an
illogical manner. However he emphasized that the property owner is compensated
for these damages. He stated that he does not believe the City has the obliga-
tion of up-grading the property once again to the detriment.of surrounding
residents. He stated it is their position that this particular parcel is a
window into both the Cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim, and as such, the prospect
of a shopping center with zero landscaped setback to be viewed both from the
freeway off-ramp and from Short Street is not desirable. Further he advised
that the homes in this immediate area are on one-half to two-acre lots, and the
area is sparsely developed and exclusively residential. He questioned whether
an additional new undeveloped property should be placed into the commercial
zone of the City of Anaheim when there is already undeveloped C-1 property
within a reasonable distance. Mr. Paxton felt that a variance coupled with a
requested zone change creates a situation'whereby the developer has actually
set-up his own necessity for the variance. In addition he felt that should the
project receive Council approval, it would warrant the submission of an E.I.R.
because of the large amount of filling and grading necessary to develop the
property.
In answer to Councilman Seymour,~Mr. Paxtonrelated that he felt the
only appropriate use for this particular property would be agricultural or per-
haps equestrian uses.
Mr. Leonard Guttman, 6022 Short Street,.¥orba Linda, advised that he
lives immediately adjacent to subject property amd read the letter which he
presented to the City Planning Connission in opposition to subject zoning
petitions. Hr. Guttman's objections were based on the fact that the proposed
comnercial usage at this location would decrease the value of his property and
make his home untenable. In addition he cited that there is already a shopping
center located within 7/lOth of a mile away;' that there would be insufficient
parking; that the proposal would increase traffic on a dead-end street; that
any advertising signs said market WOuld display would be directly visible from
his living room window as well as all air conditioning apparatus.
Mr. Guttman advised that he had been living on his one and one-half
acre lot prior to construction of the freeway and that at the time he dedicated
a portion of his property for the recreation of' Short Street, he was assured by
the State Highway Department he would be given an' opportunity to purchase this
particular property to protect the value of his own property. However this
opportunity was not made available to him. He advised, in answer to Councilman
Seymour that if he owned the property he would retain it as a landscaped area
to enhance his home.
Mr. Guttman referred to a petitionwith 70 signatures submitted at
the Planning Commission hearing and submitted an additional list of signatures
of residents opposing the proposed reclassification and variance at this time.
Mr. John Parrish, Principalof Esperanza High School, advised that a
facility of the type proposed within such proximity to a high school and two
elementary schools, creates an undue source of problems for the school adminis-
trators, students themselves and for the adjacent property owners. He urged
that the Council deny said application on behalf of the Placentia Unified
Schoo~ District.
Mr. John Sully, 60-61 Grand View Extension, Yorba Linda, pointed out
that there are contradictory, street width figures given on the plot plans and
other documents submitted which he wished to call to Council's attention. He
pointed out that if the Applicant had not used the proper street dimensions in
drawing up the plot plan, there may be even less room than anticipated for
parking on the property.
Mrs. Evelyn Sully, 60-61 Grand View Extension, Yorba Linda, pointed
out that this situation should not be viewed by the Council as a hardship since
74-596
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
the developer has admitted he has been in this business for 25 years and was
fully aware of the condition and problems related to development of this particu-
lar property when he purchased same. She described the present condition of
the property and stated that her main objection would be to the unsightly
appearance of this proposed shopping center.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, either
in favor or in opposition, and hearing no response, offered the Applicant a few
minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Hill, in response to the comments made by opposition reiterated
that there is sufficient street width and ample parking provided on the proposed
plans. He indicated that this is not intended to sound like a hardship case,
that the property was purchased at public auction, at which time Mr. Guttman
also had the opportunity to offer his bid for the parcel. He stated that the
property is an eyesore in its present condition and that it is not appropriate
for residential uses. He related that he felt the property should be able to
be returned to some productive use and that the plan presented is logical. He
further advised that they were willing to stipulate to architectural and landscap-'
ing controls; concealment of the air conditioning equipment; and to eliminate
the sale of anything which is objectionable to the schools in the proposed
stores.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Hill advised that the waiver
from minimum building setback is requested because of the very narrow configura-
tion of the property. Because of its lack of width, they plan to place the
structure to to rear of the property and the parking in front.
Mayor Thom closed the hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Hill purchased the particular
property at a rather low cost and as a business risk, and that no one should
expect the City Council to bail them out of a self-induced hardship situation.
She further indicated that she felt "impossible-to-develop" parcels such as
this subject property should not be placed on the open market.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that he felt that Council should not
be concerned at all with the property owner's right to profit, that the issue
is strictly one of the use of the land and the Council should confine their
deliberations to that factor.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have
no significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from the
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-270: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-270
for adoption, denying Reclassification No. 73-74-52, as recommended by the City
Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHBLM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY
HEREIN-AFTER DESCRIBED. (73-74-52)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
Sneegas
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-270 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-271: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-271
for adoption, denying Variance No. 2602, as recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
74-597
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO.
2602.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-271 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Thom moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:50 P.M.)
AFTER llgCESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (4:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-53: Application by HarJorie J. and Alan
R. TalC, requesting a change in zone from R-A to M-l, for property located be-
tween Omega Avenue and Winston Road, on the south side of O~ega Avenue, north.
side of Winston R~ad, east of State College Boulevard, was submitted together
with request for exemption from the requirement to prepare an E.I.R.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-103,
recommended that subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and further recommended that said reclassification be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street
along Winston Road for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along
Winston Road including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all
improvements such as.curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as re-
quired by the City Engineer and in.accordance with standard plans and specifi-
cations on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facili-
ties along Winston Road shall be installed as required by the Director of
Public Utilities, and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements'.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depart~aent prior to eom-
mencement of structural framing.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That perpetual easement agreements with the owners or lessees of
the properties providing for circulation of trash trucks from one parcel to the
other shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval;
then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to
issuance of a building permit.
8. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
9. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop-
erty, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The pro-
visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
~, action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one
~i~!~ year from the date hereof,, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
~'~ ~"\ 10. That Condition Nos, 3, 5, 6, and 8, above-~entioned, shall be
"'. t~omplied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Council reviewed the Development Services Department staff
r~port and Planning Com~tssion reco~endation, and finding same adequate,
determined to forego further verbal report by the Zoning Supervisor regarding
sa~d application.
74-598
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June lip 1974~ !:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satis-
fied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Frank Morris, 1785 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, representing the
Applicant replied affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if anyone either in favor or in opposition wished to
address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council finds that the subject reclassi-
fication will have no significant effect on the environment and is therefore
exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-272: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-272 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (73-74-53 - M-I)
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-272 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-57: Application by Carl Karcher, request-
ing a change in zone from M-1 to C-2 for property located on the north side of
Romneya Drive, east of Harbor Boulevard, was submitted together with request
for exemption from the requirement to prepare an E.I.R.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-100,
recommended that subject reclassification be exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the Califor-
nia Environmental Quality Act and further recommended Reclassification No.
73-74-57 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Romneya Drive as required
by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications
on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
2. That street lighting facilities along Romneya Drive shall be
installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance
with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the Director of
Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the
City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of
the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Romneya Drive for tree planting
purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5, That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
6. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Orange, County Flood Control
District.
74-599
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 19,74~ 1:30 P.M.
9, In the event that subject property is to be divided for the
purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved
division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
10. That the property shall be developed to meet the site development
standards of the C-l, General Commercial Zone.
11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop-
erty, Condition Nos. 2, 3, and 9, 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.
13. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, above-mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Mr. Roberts briefed the location, advised that this parcel is immedi-
ately east of an existing Carl's Junior Restaurant; that the Applicant is pro'-
posing to place additional properties to the east and northeast of the C-2
Zoned restaurant into the C-2 Zone and proposes to develop a two-story corporate
office building, which use is permitted in said zone.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satis-
fied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Carl Karcher replied affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if anyone either in favor or in opposition wished to
address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pebley,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council finds that subject reclassifica-
tion will have no significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
KESOLUTION NO. 74R-273: Counciwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-273 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANANEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (73-74-57 - C-2)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBBRS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-273 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC ~KARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-56~ VARIANCE NO. 2600~ ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 125: Submitted by R. H. Grant Corporation, requesting a change in
zone from R-A to R-H-10,000 to construct a subdivision containing 86 R-H-10,000
zoned lots on the north and south sides of Nohl Ranch Road, westerly of the
intersection of Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road with Code waiver of:
a. Requirement that single-family residential structures rear on an
arterial highway.
The City Planning Comission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-98,
recommended that the City Council certify E.I.R. No. 125, supplementing master
E.I.R. No. 80, as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and State Guidelines and further recommended that Reclassification
No. 73-74-56 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
74-600
City Hall, An. aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
1. That dedication shall be made of the easterly half of the ultimate
width of Imperial Highway from Nohl Ranch Road southerly to the terminus of
Tract No. 8533 and that any fill necessary for the entire ultimate width of
Imperial Highway will be done as part of the development of subject property.
2. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
6. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop-
erty, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provi-
sions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action
of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year
from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
8. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 44.
9. That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
10. That prior to the approval of a final tract map, the owner(s) of
subject property shall make irrevocable offer to dedicate an easement for
riding and hiking trail purposes over that portion of subject property over
which the Four Corners Pipe Line Company has an easement for pipe line and
incidental purposes on the date of this resolution. Said offer to dedicate
shall be irrevocable for a period of 20 years and may be accepted by the City
of Anaheim at such time as it is determined that development of such facilities
would be in the best interest of the City of Anaheim. Said irrevocable offer
to dedicate shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-99,
granted Variance No. 2600, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclass-
ification No. 73-74-56.
2. 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 through 44; provided, however, that insulation shall be provided
in the ceilings and walls of the two homes siding on arterial highways, as well
as double-pane windows in the walls facing the arterial highways, to properly
sound buffer the two lots affected, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8533 AND 8672: Developer, R. H. Grant Corporation; Tract
No. 8533 contains 41 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract No. 8672 contains 45
proposed 45 R-H-10,000 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting of May 13, 1974, approved
said tentative tracts subject to conditions.
The City Clerk called attention to the fact that in reference to Tract
No. 8533, a request has been submitted by Donald H. Frederickson, Director of
Engineering~ Grant Company of California, for exception to Section 17.06.110(b).
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the location of subject 30~ acres
of property and advised that it is located immediately adjacent and to the east
of the existing Westridge development and that the easterly boundary of this
parcel runs along Imperial Highway. Tract No. 8672 would be located on the
north side of Nohl Ranch Road and Tract No. 8533 on the south side.
74-601
City Hall m Anah,eim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11 } 1974 m, 1: 30 P .M.
The Code waiver requested from requirement that single-family residen-
tial structures rear on arterial highways occurs once in each tract where the
lot sides onto an arterial highway, and in one of these instances, there is a
grade differential. He advised that the Planning Com~ission reviewed the
application andrecommended approval of both reclassification and variance.
The Hayor asked if the Applicants were present and satisfied with the
reco--nendations of the City Planning Commission.
Hr. Donald H. Frederickson, Grant Company of California, advised that
he was appearing primarily for the purpose of providing any requested Informa-
tion and to answer any questions from Council or thepubltc, and further that.
he would make himself available as long as necessary to respond and provide
information. Further he called to Council's attention the fact that E.I.R. No.
125 is supplementary to E.I.R. No. 80, which was approved by the City Council
on May 22, 1973, and is on file with the City Clerk of the City o£ Anaheim and
available for inspection by any member of the public upon request.
Mr. Frederickson advised that the firm is willing to accept the
recommendations made by the. City Planning Commission. He pointed out one
correction to the City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC74-99, reference in
paragraph 2 of the Findings, that the lots are above grade level, and advised
that the lots are actually below grade level.
In addition, Hr. Frederickson advised that they have learned this
date that Anaheim Hills, Inc., is performing studies which may result in a
revision of the alignment of Imperial Highway and consequently may necessitate
revisions to Tentative Nap, Tract No. 8533. For this reason he requested a
three-week continuance on that particular tract only.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in
favor or in opposition to the items under consideration.
Appearing in opposition to the proposed zoning actions were Hr. A1
Polley, 453 Westridge Circle; Hr.:.Stephen Nasser, 465 Westrtdge Circle; Hr.
Richard Scher, 455 ~estridge Circle. The property owners related the history
of grading work performed on the property adjoining their homes and to the east
(which constitutes the property within Tract No. 8672), which began after they
were sold their homes in approximately the fall of 1972, and which caused the
grade level of that property to be elevated considerably from its original
differentiation with their lot pads, causing them to become concerned over
possible destruction of their vtew when the structures were built, particularly
since they paid view premiums varying from $1,500 to $4,500. Upon contacting
the City Engineering Division, it was ascertained that no grading permit had
been issued for this project, and Hr. Nasser advised that he personally pursued
the matter with members of the City Engineering Division who located no permit
nor grading plan for this tract at that time. Hr. Nasser read a letter which
had been addressed to the City Planning Coaanission and Engineering Division on
Nay 14, 1973, describing the situation.
In addition, the property owners advised that it is not their intent
to stop development on this particular piece of property, but do want assurance
that they will retain their view lots..They advised that they had not offered
opposition to the previously proposed townhouse-condominium project, since it
was evident that careful consideration was being given to protecting their
property rights and their view.
In addition, Mr. Scher pointed out that the land was represented 'to
-them as being a certain piece of view property situated with a canyon behind it,
and the grading to raise the elevation of this canyon did not commence until
after all of the view lots were sold. Further they contended that the sales
person indicated to them at the time of sale that he had no knowledge of what,
if anything, would be built on subject property located behind their homes.
Hr. Tony Allen of the Grant Company of California, explained what
transpired during the three stages of grading on Tract No. 8672. He advised,
in connectionwtth any representations made by the sales people to potential
buyers, that a person buying any type of home with a view signs a statement to
74-602
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
the effect that they are purchasing the home without any representations being
made as to what happens in the future,, since this is not within their power of
control. In addition, he advised that the sales personnel were not aware of
what would occur on the property lying easterly of the existing Westridge tract
and, therefore, statements to this effect were correct. In the instance of
Tract No. 8672, he indicated that they intend to plot the homes very carefully
to maintain as much of the view for the homeowners in the existing Westridge
tract as is possible. He stated that the extent to which the view would be
impaired would be only a matter of the peak of a roof from a two-story home
sticking up above the grade level.
He indicated that the townhouse project originally planned for subject
property, which received a huge amount of opposition from the Westridge tract,
allowed much more flexibility and the larger green areas made it easier to
assure an unimpaired and pleasant view; whereas single-family development by
its very nature provides houses which are evenly spaced and more roof tops. He
stated that the Grant Company withdrew this townhouse project as a result of
the objections of the Westridge homeowners and submitted subject application
which is an extension of the Westridge tract itself and is what they indicated
would be acceptable to them. He submitted a copy of the letter from the West-
ridge Homeowners' Association indicating their approval of subject tracts and
urging Council approval as well.
In answer to Councilman Thom, Mr. Allen stipulated that the topography
map shown in E.I.R. No. 125 (Figure No. 3A) is accurate at the present time.
Councilman Seymour noted that at the meeting with the Westridge Home-
owners' Association regarding the townhouse project, an understanding was
arrived at that the Grant Company would not destroy the views of the homeowners
on Westridge Circle, and he failed to understand why this same consideration
could not be given, even though the project has bean converted to an R-H-10,000
development. He inquired into the difficulty of shifting or replotting homes
within Tract No. 8672 so as not to have any two-story homes abutting the periph-
ery of the existing Westridge tract.
Mr. Allen replied that as the houses were plotted on the tentative
map, there would be four two-story homes and three one-story homes which abut
the existing Westridge tract (Tract No. 7569), but that at this particular time
he was not certain that the one-story homes would fit on the lots in question
without destroying the rear yards.
Councilman Seymour felt it would be a small consideration to replot
and adjust within the tentative map to assure the property owners on Westridge
Circle an unimpaired view and advised that if certain variances from Code
requirements are necessary in order to accomplish this, the Grant Company would
be given every consideration.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's query regarding how many homes
within the two tracts would have six- to ten-foot setbacks, Mr. Allen replied
that there are approximately 13, but that this may also be necessary on the
lots abutting Tract No. 7569 in order to accommodate the wider one-story homes.
Mr. Allen advised that in many instances, the homes with the six- to ten-foot
setbacks contain three-car garages.
Councilman Sneegas felt very strongly that there is a line of integrity
which must be maintained by the developer, particularly in a master planned com-
munity such as Anaheim Hills, where an individual can check the master plan and
see that the property to the rear of his potential home is owned by the same
firm. Me advised that from his own personal experience he has discovered that
statememts made by the sales people can be misleading regarding such things as
view lots. 'He advised that he felt it is incumbent upon the developer to
insure that the sales people do not misrepresent the facts to potential buyers.
Mr. Allen stated that they do not sell homes as "view lots" for pre-
miums as low as $1,500, that if they had such lots, the premiums would amount
to between $5,000 and $10,000.
Mr. John Millick, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., addressed the
Council and s~mm~rized the conclusions of the Westridge Homeowners' Association
m~eting at which the townhouse project was presented and discussed. He related
74-603
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
that there was strong opposition to the townhouse plan and also to the two
corners of the project which were planned for commercial uses (potentially a
convience market and service station) and that these projects have since been
abandoned due to the fact that a major community shopping center is under
construction a short distance away.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Allen if he would be willing to refund
the premiums paid by homeowners, to which Mr. Allen replied that his firm would
be agreeable to refunding the premium if the view is destroyed, provided that an
unbiased third party is involved in the decision as to what constitutes impair-
ment or obstruction of a view.
Mayor Thomasked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there
being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Seymour moved that Council action on Reclassification No.
73-74-56, Variance No. 2600, E.I.R. No. 125 and Tentative Tract Nos. 8672 be
continued one week to allow the Grant Company of California time to revise the
plot plan of Tentative Tract No. 8672 in an attempt to place one-story homes on
all lots within said tract which abutt Tract No. 7569 and/or to submit sight-
line studies for any proposed two-story homes abutting said tract, for approval
by the City Council. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Sneegas moved to continue action on Tentative Tract No.
8633 and request for exception to Section 17.06.110(b) in connection with said
tract to July 2, 1974, as requested by the developer. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED 1974-75 BUDGET: Councilman Seymour initiated
Budget discussion by reviewing with Police Chief Michel several items listed in
the Police Department section of the Budget which were of concern to him because
of the increased cost shown in the proposed 1974-75 Budget versus what was
allocated for same in 1973-74. The items reviewed included:
Operations 312~a~ (Pase 2-937 - Reassignment of the Brother's Keeper Program
Personnel to the Burslary PreventiOn Prosram: Councilman Seymour stated he
could not find where in the Budget the 20 personnel suppliedby the Brother's
Keeper Funds were transferred, and Chief Michel advised that there were never
20 personnel, only 1 sergeant and 5 patrolmen.
Account Number 110 - Salaries and Wases, permanent full-time employees (Page
No. 2-95): Councilman Seymour noted that there was an increase of $445,000 in
subject account. Chief Michel explained this is due to salary increases which
resulted from the negotiations during the 1973-74 Fiscal Year and also explained
the philosophy of attempting to achieve an increase in field personnel by
hiring additional civilian personnel and cadets to take over tasks presently
performed by sworn personnel. This will result in a 15% increase in total
sworn personnel spread throughout the department.
Account No. 160 - Part-time or t~porary employees: Chief Michel explained that
this increase is a part of the same philosophy and includes the categories of
crossing guards and traffic controllers. Also, this reflects the additiOn of
40 to the number of cadets.
Code No. 223 - Telephone and Telegraph Expenses (Page No. 2-95),: Councilman
Seymour questioned the increase to $19,346, when actual expenditures are shown
for the Fiscal Year 1972-73 of $2,513. Chief Michel advised that this increased
cost is the result of the new Co~unications Center which includes an advanced
Teletype machine to be connnected with the State-wide system..
Code No. 320 - Lab, Medical and Chemical Supplies (PageNo. 2-95): Councilman
Seymour pointed out that these costs are up 641. Chief Michel replied that
this is due to the new centralized system of purchasing equipment and supplies
for the entire department, which will avoid a three-way duplication in ordering
and stocking supplies. In addition, he pointed out that a part of this increased
cost is for color photography equipment and chemical processing.
74-604
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Code No. 364 - Xerox Supplies (Pa~e No. 2-95): Chief Michel advised that the
increase noted is due to the fact that the Police Department now has two Xerox
machines; that in order to effect some savings a heavy advance purchase of
paper was authorized; and that a portion of this cost is recovered in fees
charged for Police reports.
Account No. 426 - Special Training Expenses (Page No. 2-96): Chief Michel
explained that in the past, the department has surpassed their estimates for
expenses associated with training programs, and in particular did not take into
account those programs which come up during the year not known at the time of
Budget estimates.
S,,mm~ry Item - Other Char~es (Pa~e N0. 2-98}: Councilman Seymour pointed out
an increase of $120,460 and questioned what these charges cover as well as the
reason for the increase. Chief Michel explained that this section of the
account is used to cover the police fringe benefit package shown on the same
page below in Account Nos. 441 through 479 and includes the employee's dental
insurance costs for the first time this year.
Account No. 237 - Police Helicopter Pro,ram (Pa~e No. 2-98}: Councilman Seymour
questioned the reason for showing only one total figure for the entire helicopter
program which has Account Nos. 237-10 through 237-60 reflecting various cost
areas of the program. He referred to the cost analysis prepared by Chief
Michel, dated May 1, 1974 and noted that evidently there are three pilots,
three observers and operational costs included in the Budget which totals
$241,304, for which the City receives, in return, ten hours of daily coverage.
Councilman Seymour expressed the opinion that if the Council is
looking to create economies within the Budget, they must seek to hold the line
in those areas which are increasing the most dramatically and these appear to
be the Police, Fire and Utilities Departments. He voiced the opinion that it
might be possible to decrease Budget expenditures without affecting the level
of services provided too greatly by moving out of the helicopter program entirely.
Extensive Council discussion ensued regarding the costs versus the
benefits of the police helicopter program, during which it was pointed out that
the salaries of those employees involved in this program would not be deleted
from the Budget, and that these individuals are paid according to the usual pay
scale for patrolman. Further, that these employees, if reassigned, would
provide the manPower for only slightly over one additional automobile unit on a
24-hour basis. Chief Michel emphasized that the effectiveness of the helicopters,
while it is difficult to demonstrate in percentages and numbers, does provide
an excellent augmentation and enhancement to the ground units. He stated that
the reponse time, if the helicopter is in the air at the time of call is an
average of one minute, thirty seconds, City-wide. He advised that the helicopters
patrol ten hours daily during the peak time of need.
Councilman Sneegas pointed out that one of the most important aspects
of police work is surveillance and that the helicopters do provide the Police
Department with an exceptional range of vision.
The types of emergencies in which the heli~opters have proven useful
were described, as well as the lower rates of vandalism experienced at schools
and parks in the City since the advent of helicopter patrols. Fire Chief Riley
spoke on the effectiveness of using helicopters to locate brush fires in the
hill and canyon areas and advised that he does support this program. Chief
Michel outlined which of the cities in Orange County now provide their own
helicopter service, these being Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach,
and added that many other cities have requested information from him regarding
the police.helicopter program.
Councilman Seymour reiterated that with a Budget of the magnitude
which has been proposed for 1974-75 and which is growing at the rate which this
Budget exhibits, the only way to control expenses is by drawing a hard and firm
line. Further he voiced the opinion that there is no organization which could
not, if hard pressed, effect economies of from 10 to 15%. He was adamant that
the City Council begin to create some economies prior to the June 25, 1974
deadline for approval of the Budget. He noted that this is a prerequisite to
gaining citizen's support of any bond issues proposed.
74-605
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL. MINUTES - J,une !,11 1974~ 1:30 p.M.
Councilman Sneegas pointed out that from his experience, the City
Manager and Department heads do not submit for Council approval a budget which
can then be disected in order' to create economies, but rather a budget which
continues at least the same level of services which the City Council and citizens
of Anaheim have indicated they wish to continue receiving. Me outlined certain
areas which, in his personal opinion, he would consider extraneous, however
these services have been provided for many years and the population expects
that they continue. He indicated that he felt the appropriate ti~e to begin to
create economies is one year in advance of budget deliberation and the Council
should proceed by beginning on the 1975-76 Budget is~ediately. Further he
cautioned that when an area of expense is eliminated, the price is usually a
consnensurate reduction in services.
Councilman Pebley indicated that he considered the $8,000 spent for
advertising of Park and Recreation programs via materials delivered to indivi-
dual homes to be an extraneous expense, since those individuals who are inter-
ested in these programs could avail themselves of the necessary infor~ation on
their own.
Councilman Seymour stated that continuing at the same levels of
service as indicated by the Com~znity and the Council to b~ desirable, and
absorbing additional increases in cost without question, assumes that the
mechanism which delivers the services is running efficiently, and it is this
assumption which he takes exception to. He reiterated that he felt no organiza-
tion exists which cannot do a better Job at a lower cost.
At the conclusion of discussion regarding the possibility of deleting
the helicopter program, Councilwoman Kaywood inquired regarding the cost shown
in the Budget under Public Utilities for street lighting and inquired why there
is a difference in this cost as compared with the 1973-74 Budget.
Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt replied that this proposed figure is
the cost for continuation of street lighting at essentially the sa~e level of
service. He advised' that the City's General Fund pays for the ~nergy to run
the street lights and since electrical ensery costs have increased, this figure
also reflects an increase.
Hr. Murdoch requested that the Council permit him an opportunity to
submit further facts and figures regarding the effectiv~less of the City's
helicopter usage, prior to making any final dicision on reduction or elimination
of such services and by general Council consent, further discussion of the
proposed 1974-75 Budget was continued to the June 25, 1974 Council meeting.
PUBLIC DANCE PEP. HIT: Application filed by Hrs. Concha C. Flores on behalf of
Sociedad Progresista Hexicana No. 33 for pemit to conduct public dance on June
16, 1974 at Carpenter's Ra11, 608 West Vermont Street,'was submitted and granted
subject to provisions of Chapters 3.28 and 4.16 of the AnahaimNunicipal Code,
as recommended by the Chief of Police, final arrang~enta, to be made with the
Police Department, on motion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman
Pebley. HOTION CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application filed by Hr. Willis- I. C. Britton, for
A~usement Devices Per, it to allow installation of flipper pinball machines at
Flaherty's Saloon, 1652 West Lincoln Avenue, ~as submitted and. granted, subject
to provisions of Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anahet~a HunicipalCode, as
reco~aended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded
by Councilman Pebley. NOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - CHICAGO RUBBER BRIDGE CLUB: Request sub~ttted by Marge Sowers and Ben
Mendoza, to operate a bridge club utilizing the facilities of the Anaheim Bowl,
1925 West Lincoln Avenue, from ll:O0 a.m; to ll:00 p.m., Nonday through Saturday,
was submitted together with reports fro~ Development Services Department,
License Division and the City Attorney's Office.
On motion by Councilwoman Kayvood, seconded by Council~aan Pebley, the
request to operate the Chica~o Rubber Bridge Club was denied on the basis of
insufficient parking provisions on subject property, as recommended by the
Zoning Division. NOTION CARRIED.
74-606
City Hall~ A~_~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST -'WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEE - SAINT JOSEPH'S HILL OF HOPE THRIFT SHOP:
Request of Gene T. Moffett, Vice President, Board of Trustees, Saint Joseph's
Hill of Hope for waiver of business license fee in connection with a thrift
shop to be located in the Granada Square Shopping Center, 1076 North State
College Boulevard, was submitted together with recommendations from the City
Attorney's Office, Police Department and License Division.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the meeting. (6:55 P.M.)
The City Attorney advised that the letter requesting the waiver of
business license fee specifically states that the funds will apply to the
building fund for Saint Joseph's Hill of Hope whereas City Council Policy No.
305 states that "charitable purposes is not determined to be a private fund or
a building fund for the benefit of the charitable organization".
COUNCIL POLICY NO. 305 - AMENDMENT: After brief discussion, on motion by
Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council authorized
revision of Council Policy No. 305, striking the words from Item No. ~ in said
policy "or a building fund". (Councilwoman Kaywood temporarily absent.)
MOTION CARRIED.
In addition, Zoning Supervis-or Roberts read the description of items
to be sold in the proposed thrift shop as described in a letter dated June 1,
1974, addressed to Mr. Phillip Schwartze of Development Services Department and
the City Council determined that said merchandise as described would be construed
as within the definition of primarily new.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the meeting. (6:59 P.M.)
On'motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council approved the requested waiver of business license fee in connection
with Saint Joseph's Hill of Hope Thrift Shop, 1076 North State College Boulevard.
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNTY OF ORANGE CONDITIONAL PERMIT NO. 1516: Zoning Supervisor Roberts reported
that notification has been received from the Orange County Planning Department
of a request to establish a recreational vehicle storage yard and caretakers'
mobile home on County property located north of La Palma Avenue, with frontage
on the west side of Lakeview Avenue. Said property is presently classified
County M-1 with resolution of intent to City of Anaheim M-1 and is additionally
within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone and within the Sphere of Influence
of the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Roberts advised that the City Planning Commission recommended
that the Orange County Planning Department deny said application for Conditional
Permit No. 1516 and further recommended to Council that if the County does
approve same, that the City of Anaheim not provide utility services to the
property.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council sustained the recommendation of the City Planning Commission in
connection with Conditional Permit No. 1516. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-274 - WORK ORDER NO. 1003: Upon receipt of certification from
the Director of Public Works, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-274
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE
COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER,
AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL wORK NECESSAR¥ TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVe, TO WIT: KEROOFING OF ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1003. (Federal Roof Company)
Roll Call Vote:
74-607
City M~!i, An~_hei~ Californ_i~_ - CO, IL .~!~rl~ - J~ I1, 1974,..1:~ P.M.
AYES: CO. IL ~: Se~r, S~s ~ ~
~: CO, IL ~: ~od ar~ Pebley
~S~: CO~CIL ~S: ~ne
The ~yor declared Resoluti~ ~. 74R-274 duly ~ssed a~ adoptS.
~SOLUTION NO. 74R-275 - DE~S OF ~S~: Council~n Pebley offered Resolution
No. 74R-275 for adopti~.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS
AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (A~erican Housing Guild - Los Angeles; Dumn
Properties Corporation; Rogers A. & Barbara A. Severson; Southern California
Industrial Properties, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MENBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom'
NOES: COUNCIL NEHBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL NENBERS: None
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 74R-275 duly passed and adopted.
PROPOSED ABANDONMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 74R-276: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution
No. 74R-276 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF illigRIlt DRCLARING,ITS INTENTION
TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING THERRON. (No.
73-11A; July 2, 1974, 1:30 P.N.; northwest corner of Niralo~a Avenue and Blue
Gum Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL NEHBERS: Kaywood. SeYmOur, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL H~HB~RS: None
COUNCIL NRNBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-276 duly passed and adopted.
SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES: Report prepared by John W. Bruns, Right of Way and
Land Section, regarding offers received in response to the City's advertising
of ten various parcels of property for sale, were substttted for Council consider-
ation. (Said properties authorized for sale by negotiation at the Council
meeting of May 28, 1974, since no bids were'received in response to legal
advertisements.)
1. CITY-OWneD PARCEL ON WEST SIDE OF ALADDIN DRIVe: Ninimumvalue previously
established at $350. One offer of $360 received for said parcel. Recommenda-
tion from the Right of Way and Land Section to accePt.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council accepted the offer of Franz and Marthe M. Lazarus, 109 North
Aladdin Drive, and authorized sale of City-owned parcel on the west side of
Aladdin Drive for $360. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CITY-OW~m~_ P,~C~L ~T SOUTHWEST CORNEROF CERRITOS AVENU~AND NUTW~D:.
Minimumvalue Previously established at $10,500, Four offers repOrted received
ranging from $6,100 to $8,750.'
At the request 'of the City Attorney, Hr. John Bruns, Right of Way
Representative, reported that this particular parcel at Cerritos and Nutwood
has been offered for sale by the City on four separate occasions as far back as
April of 1965 and no bids received for same. Hr. Bruns related that subject
parcel is currently not connected to a sewer and considering these facts and
74-608
City Ha.ll~ A~__aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11.~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
the Surrounding neighborhood, he stated that he is satisfied that $8,750 would
be a reasonable price and a fair market value for subject parcel. He thereupon
recommended that the Council accept the highest bid received of $8,750.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council accepted the offer of $8,750 for the City-owned parcel located at
the southwest corner of Cerritos and Nutwood and authorized sale of same.
MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting just prior to adjournment, Mr. John Krajacic,
1677 West Beacon Avenue, was recognized by the Mayor and he advised that he
would be interested in submitting a verbal bid higher than his written offer
for the Cerritos-Nutwood property.
Councilman Thom moved that the Council rescind the action previously
taken authorizing sale at $8,750. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
In response to Mr. KraJacic's offer, due to the fact that the Council
concurred that it would be unfair not to allow the other parties who had submit-
ted bids a further opportunity to make offers, the Council deemed it proper to
conduct a public sale of said property located at Cerritos and Nutwood, on
Tuesday, June 18, 1974 at 1:00 p.m. and directed the Right of Way Section to
notify the other parties interested in said property of this sale. Further,
the Council determined that the lowest bid which would be accepted at such sale
would be $8,751 and that a cashier's check or certified check in the amount of
$1,000 would be required as deposit.
3. CITY-OWNED PARCEL ON EAST SIDE OF PAULINE STREET~ NORTH OF LA PALMA: Pre-
viously established minimum value of $24,500. The Right of Way Section reported
that two offers were received, the highest being $22,500.
Mr. Bruns reported that' this parcel was originally purchased as part
of the Electrical Substation site and the City paid 70¢ per square foot.
Following construction of the substation, the subject triangular shaped portion
was left, which is an irregular shape and would be difficult to develop. Mr.
Bruns reported that an offer of $8,500 for the portion which lies north of
Pauline Street only was turned down approximately six to eight months ago.
Councilman Pebley voiced the opinion ghat an industrial developer
could, perhaps with a variance, construct some type of structure on subject
property and provide parking, whichwould mean that the property would be worth
considerably more than $24,500. He requested that the Development Services
Department review the situation and analyze whether or not a structure could be
placed on the property so that the Council could more accurately determine its
value. He thereupon moved that action regarding offers to purchase said City-
owned parcel at Pauline and La Palma, north of the City substation, be continued
for one week, pending investigation by Development Services Department of the
potential uses of subject property. Councilman Sneegas seconded by motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
REVIEW - INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS - ARTHUR YOUNG AND COMPANY: The City Manager sub-
mitted a memorandum from M. R. Ringer, Finance Director, advising that Arthur
Young and Company has accepted the City's request for a review of the City's
investment of idle funds, the maximum fee established is $5,000, with report
expected by July 1, 1974.
Onmotion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the City Council approved the agreement with Arthur Young and Company, as
submitted,-for management services review of the City's-investment program, at
a maximum fee of $5,000. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley left the meeting. (7:20 P.M.)
PURCMASE OF PROPF~TY - 208 SOUTH CLAUDINA STREET: The City Manager reported that
the seller of property located at 208 South Claudina Street has accepted the
City's counter offer of $50,000, said price to include broker's commission;
74-609
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June ~lz 197~, 1:30 P.M.
preliminary title report to be furnished by seller; 60-day escrow with the City
Attorney's Office to act as escrow agent; the seller to be able to occupy the
property for two months or less without charge while att~mpting to relocate.
Councilman Seymour questioned what assurance the City has regarding
their occupancy rights at the end of the requested tenancy by the seller. He
suggested that the escrow period be extended by 30 days and the City be able to
attain occupancy at the close of escrow.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the City Council authorized the purchase of property located at 208 South
Claudina Street, for the sum of $50,000 with 90-day escrow; the City take
occupancy at close of escrow, unless the City negotiates and enters separate
rental agreements with the tenants; further subject to the provisions outlined
in the letter agreement dated June 5, 1974. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY - 127 SOUTH PHILADELPHIA STREET: Mr. Murdoch reported that the
seller has accepted the City's counter offer of $27,000 with 60-day escrow, the
City Attorney's Office to act as escrow agent, and City to have ability to take
occupancy at the close of escrow.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
the City Council authorized purchase of property located at 127 SouthPhiladelphia
Street on the terms as outlined in the letter agreement dated June 5, 1974, for
the sum of $27,000. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AND SERVICES - INSTALLATION OF HOM~ PRESSURE P, RDUCING VALVES~
TRACT NOS. 5058 AND 6303: The City Manager reported on informal bids received
for the installation of home pressure reducing valves in Tract Nos. 5058 and
6303, located at Solomon Drive, south of Santa Ann Canyon Road, and advised
that the low bid was submitted by Universal Plumbing Center, Inc., in the
amount of $2,922.50.
On recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Thom moved that the
bid of Universal Plumbing Center, Inc., bi accepted and the work authorized in
the amount of $2,922.50. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. NOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AND SERVICES - JACK AND BORE.~ 21-INCH STE~L' CASING: The City
Manager reported on informal bids received for Jack and bOring of 60 linear
feet and furnishing 24-inch steel casing for Tustin Avenue, south of Hiraloma
Avenue, and advised that the loW bid was submitted by McGuire Construction,
Inc., in the amount of $5,170.
On recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Thom moved that the
bid of McGuire Construction, Inc., be accepted and the work authorized in the
amount of $5,170. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. NOTION CARRIED.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Claims were denied as recommended by the City Attorney and
ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilman Seymour:
a. Claim submitted by K & F. Construction for water flood damage at
site of Canyon Hills TMR School, purportedly caused by the City while making
improvements to Imperial Highway, on or about January 3, 1974.
b. Claim submitted by The Hartford Insurance Company on behalf of
Van Doren Rubber Company for damage to vehicle purportedly caused by chuckhole
in an alley filled withwater and not visible at the intersection of Atchison
Street and Santa Ana Street, on or about February 11, 1974.
c. Claim submitted by Steven J. O'Keefe, individually and on behalf
of William O'Keefe, a minor, for purportedly wrongful death of claimant's wife
and son and personal injuries to other son, occurring at State College Boulevard,
south.of Broadway, on or about February 26, 1974.
d. Claim submitted by Fredric So, ers for injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of falling while attempting to sit in assigned seat and
being struct by unknown person at the Anaheim Convention Center, on or about
March 27, 1974.
e. Claim submitted by Lois Hontgomery for damage sustained to vehicle
purportedly as a result of City of Anaheim tree tri~er dropping palm branch
onto said vehicle at 714 North Brookhurst Street, on or about May 15, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
74-610
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-277 - AGRm~MENT WITH ROSS DAVIS - COMMUNITY BAND DIRECTOR~ PARKS
AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-277 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TMECITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ROSS DAVIS, AN
INDIVIDUAL. (Community Band Director - total $1,225.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-277 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-278 - AGREEMENT~ WILLIAM MAUCH - OPERATION OF THE PEARSON PARK
SHUFFLEBOARD COURTS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-278 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAItEIMAPPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM MAUCM, WITH REFERENCE TO OPERATION
OF THE PEARSON PARK SHUFFLEBOARD COURTS. ($20.00 per month)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-278 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-279 - ESTABLISHING RATES - SWIMMING POOLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION
OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No.
74R-279 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE RATES
TO BE CHARGED FOR ADMISSION TO, AND ~ USE OF, THE PF~RSON PARK POOL AND ALL
OTHER SWINNING POOLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF AND OPERATED BY THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPART~NT. (Effective June 15, 1974 - 18 and over, 50¢ per session;
under 18, 35¢ per session).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~MBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL HE~B~RS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
None
Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-279 duly passed and adopted.
CORRESPOND~CE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. City of Los Alamitos - Resolution No. 662 - Concerning the Orange
County Intelligence Unit.
b. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - May 24, 1974.
c. State Department of Transportation - Suspending.studies on the
Route 90 transportation corridor between La Brea Avenue in Los Angeles County
and the Route 91 (Riverside) Freeway in Orange County for an indefinite period.
MOTION CARRIED.
74-611
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MI,NUTES - June 1.1 ~ 1974 ~, 1: ~0 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3306: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3306 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance BOok.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAItE~ AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-3 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL HEHBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Tho~
None
Pebley
The Mayor declared OrdinanceNo. 3306 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3307: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3307 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AHENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3289, NUNC PRO TUNC,
RELATING TO ZONING. (Correction to Section Title - Sign Ordinance)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNC IL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Sneesas and Thom
None
Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3307 duly passed and adopted.
REPORT - STATUS OF CHARTER AHENDMENT FOR DIRECT ELECTION OF T~MAYOR_{ The City
Attorney reported that he had been notified that the Charter Amendment has been
filed with the Secretary of State and is now effective.
AGREF2fENT WITH CANTEEN CORPORATION - VENDING NACHINEs AT THE ~!~E, DEPARTMENT: The
City Attorney reported that due to the disrupti°n in vendinSmachine service at
the Anaheim Police Department during the wage dispute it was necessary to
renegotiate for this service. Offers were solicited from several concessionaires
and the proposal is now to enter a three-party arrangement in which the City
enters into an agreement with Canteen Corporation, approving their placement of
vending machines at the Police Department and to supply water and power for
same. The Canteen Corporation will then enter into an agreement with the
Anaheim Police Association regarding prices of articles and disbursement of the
proceeds. The City will realize no profits pursuant to this agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-280: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-280
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAg~IMAUTHORIZING THE EXECU-
TION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CANTEEN CORPORATION FOR PLACEMENT OF VENDING MACHINES
AT THE ANAHEIMPOLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL H EMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared ReSolution No.'74R-280 duly Passed and adopted.
REQUEST - SrTE Foa Sm~LL ANU~L ADOFrlON cm~r~a - F~LINE AND ~.~IENDS, INC.:
Mrs. Rose Hosea, Founder and President of Feline and Canine Friends, Inc., a
non-profit organization, 505 North Bush Street, was reco~nized by the Mayor and
related her current difficulties in obtaining a new site for a small animal
adoption center. She advised that she was interested and did submit an offer
74-612
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 11~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
to purchase the City-owned property at Pauline Street and La Palms Avenue. She
asked whether the Council could recommend a site which would be suitable for
her needs and within her financial.ability or could direct her to someone who
might be able help.
Councilman Seymour suggested that Mrs. Hosea contact the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce, as this is one of their functions.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, June 18, 1974, at
1:00 P.M. Councilman Sneegas ~econded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:00 P.M.
City Clerk
City Hall~ A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 18~ 1974~ 1:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular
Session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Hougard
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
SENIOR RIGHT OF WAY REPRESENTATIVE: Matthew Boscia
RIGHT OF WAY REPRESENTATIVE:. John Bruns
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. and announced that
this Adjourned Regular Session was called to conduct a public sale of
City-owned propertY.
On request of the Mayor, the City Attorney outlined the following
ground rules which would applyto the conduct of this sale and recom-
mended that the Council adopt and employ same:
1. That the'sale is predicated upon the fact that the City Council
will reserve the right to reject all bids irrespective of amounts of said bids.
2. That a good-faith deposit be presented to the City this date by
the successful bidder, in the amount of $1,000, said amount to be forfeited in
the event the transaction is not consummated due to default by the buyer. (At
the request of Councilman Sneegas, the City Attorney clarified that if for some
reason the City cannot perform as expected pursuant to the sales agreement,
then the $1,000 deposit would be refundable.)
3. That the transaction is to be completed within 30 days of this
date or by such further time as both the City and the purchaser may agree.
4. That during the bidding process, the amount which any bidder may
offer in response to a preceeding bid shall be a minimum of $50 higher.
The Council, by general consent, indicated agreement with the ground
.rules recommended by the City Attorney and established that the public sale of
property would be conducted in accordance with same.
Councilman Sneegas indicated that it had also previously been estab-
lished that.the lowest bid to be accepted this date for the property in question
would be a $8,751.
Due to the fact that there was some confusion amoung the members of
the public present as to which City-owned parcel was offered for sale this
date, the Mayor explained that the City is offering the parcel located at
Cerritos and Nutwood, which is 8,720-square feet in size and at the time of
acquisition by the City, was a well site which has since been capped. Brief
descriptions of the property were distributed to those interested.