Loading...
1972/04/11City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINIUTE§ And/ 11. m 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. 72 -193 FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MIWTE$,; Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held March 28 and April 4, 1972 was deferred to the next regular meeting. WA1 ER 9F READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilmen Pebley moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after read- ing of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Stephenson seconded the nation. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. Araca.-__EMISMI S AGAINST TDE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $1,124,656.49, in accordance with the 1971 -72 Budget, were approved. CONTINUED DECISION AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 109: To consider vehicular circu- lation and access for properties on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Imperial Highway on the west, and the northerly prolongation of Solo- mon Drive on the east. Ca1TINUED DECISION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIA iCC X10. 2310: Submitted by Rinker Development Corporation, requesting a change of zone from R -A to C -1, to permit the construction of a shopping center and an automobile service station at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, with waivers of: a. Free standing signs in the SC Zone. b. Time limit on lighted signs. (Withdrawn) c. Required intersection for service station location. d. Setback requirements along freeways. e. Setback requirements along collector and local streets. (With- drawn) f. Landscaping requirements along arterial highways. (Withdrawn) g. Interior site boundary line setback. (Withdrawn) h. Minimum dimension for planters in the parking area. i. Minimum number of required parking stalls. (Withdrawn) Public hearings on Area Development Plan No. 109, Reclassification No. 71-72 -21 and Variance No. 2310 were held and hearings closed March 21, 1972, at which time decisions were continued to this meeting for report and recommendation of the Traffic Engineer on the feasibility of an extended left -turn pocket at Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, and from Development Services Department regarding revised conditions of approval. Traffic Engineer Edward Granzow reported that a reappraisal of the situation confirmed their earlier conclusion that one additional access point (No. 6 -A, proposed in Area Development Plan No. 109) could be justi- fied, but any additional access points would destroy the validity of the ex- pressway concept and provide another point of interference along the Santa Ana Canyon Road which it is anticipated will carry relatively high traffic in the foreseeable future. 72-194 City 44.1. ijnab California CORTJCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972, 1:30 P.M. He added that, in his opinion, the one additional access point (No. 6-A) could adequately serve the acreage to be developed at subject location, based on a presumption that the greater portion of traffic would approach from the east, and thus it would just be a continuing trip in the same direc- tion, although it would require some type of facility within the shopping cen- ter so traffic would not have to circulate through the parking lot. Mr. Granzow concluded by stating that, although the one additional access point on Santa Ana Canyon Road would be acceptable, he felt no direct access to private property should be permitted. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised that, subsequent to the public hearings on these items, an additional Exhibit (No. B) had been pre- pared on proposed Area Development Plan No. 109 showing a street running north along the east boundary of subject property from Access Point No. 6 -A and then proceeding in a northwest direction to the State -owned property immediately to the north. Also, that Staff had prepared revised recommended conditions of ap- proval to reflect concern expressed by the Council at the public hearing rela- tive to the timing on the dedication and improvement requirements, to require dedication and improvement of the north /south portion of the proposed street simultaneously with the first phase of development and a conditional dedica- tion for that portion across the northern boundary of the property. Mr. Roberts further advised that the City Attorney had recommended that if the Council approves the requested second access point, the Applicant be given a license for this revocable by the City in the event traffic demands create serious conflict; also, that an irrevocable license or easement over subject property to the State -owned property to the west be required to insure access to that property. Councilman Pebley stated he felt the requirement of the easement for the State -owned property was unjustified. The City Attorney advised that an irrevocable license does not re- quire dedication, and an easement is maintained by the user, that access rights must be provided to prevent the property from becoming landlocked. In reply to Council questioning, W. Geisler advised that it was not necessary for the Council to make the determination on who must maintain the access easements. In this regard, Councilman Dutton stated he could not require a per- son to maintain property over which he must provide access rights. Councilman Pebley contended the State created its own landlocked position when it purchased more property than necessary at that point. Mr. Geisler advised that although at this time the State has control over Santa Ana Canyon Road and all access points, eventually the road will re- vert to the City, and if Anaheim does not want additional access points, ac- cess in some other manner must be provided to the properties adjacent to the road. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Granzow advised that some other cities have set up expressways similar to the Santa Ana Canyon Road and have used frontage roads or roads at the rear of properties for access, or have pro- vided access points off connecting roads. Following discussion on the proposed road at the east boundary of subject ,property, Mk. Roberts advised that the reason the projection of that road is sot straight north through the adjoining property is that the adjacent property to the north and east has no proposal for development, therefore, no development requirements can be imposed on it; however, should the adjoining property to the east develop before subject property, they would be,required to put in the full road, with the developer of subject property being required to purchase the one -foot holding strip from the property already developed in order to -gain access to their property. 72 -195 City Hall. Anaheim.. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Councilman Pebley invited the Applicant to address the Council. Harry Rinker, Rinker Development Corporation, referring to the suggested license -type agreement, stated they had no objection to the Coun- cil requiring an easement license agreement for access rights to the State owned property that would be approved by the City Attorney's office; however, he requested such an agreement be for a floating easement so that future con- struction would be possible if desired. He reiterated his earlier statement that, in his opinion, the State owned property to the west would not be developed without the requested sec- ond access road or private drive in the western portion of subject property; that it would also be difficult to obtain quality tenants in the northern section of subject property without the requested second access. Mr. Rinker further stated he felt the dedicated street on the east boundary should be centered on the property line so that both property owners would be required to dedicate an equal amount of land for the street. He suggested as an alternative to allow the requested private drive, that a one -way lane be established for ingress only, with outgoing traffic using the dedicated street. Mr. Granzow advised it was his opinion that if the second access point was permitted it Should be for a right -turn only lane; however, a right -turn only lane would be for westbound traffic which could just as easily use the dedicated street projected for Access 6-A. Mr. Rinker stated he may not be able to get the bank and restaur- ant tenants proposed for either side of the private road if they were not allowed that road. Councilman Stephenson stated he felt a right -turn only road would create traffic problems because people trying to make a green light at Im- perial Highway would overlook the fact that the right -turn road was there and there would be rear -end collisions. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-124: Councilman Dutton offered a Resolution approving Area Development Plan No. 109 according to Exhibit "B Council discussion followed on the distance the north /south road should be improved at this time, and Mr. Rinker advised it would be neces- sary for their purposes to construct the entire road from the north to the south boundary, however, he still questioned the necessity of his dedicat- ing more than half the land for the road. The City Attorney advised that, since the owner of the property to the east, (Mrs. Maag) was not planning to develop at this time, she could not be required to dedicate a share of the road. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AREA DEVEL0PMENT PLAN NO. 109, EXHIBIT "B." Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R- 124 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Rinker stated they are proposing to use lights 8 feet from the ground with a down -light reflection, rather than the usually required 6 -foot height, and questioned the proposed requirement that the center strip of the Santa Ana Canyon Road be landscaped, since a total of 41% of the area, in- cluding the S.A.V.I. Channel, would be in landscaping. 72-196 City IQgi. Apaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972, 1 :30 P.M. W. Murdoch advised that the 6-foot height requirement for lights has been proven too low, making then more readily accessible to vandals, thus he felt the proposed 8 -foot height was appropriate. Upon being advised that other developers in the area are also being required to supply landscaping in the center strip of the Santa Ana Canyon Road, W. Rinker stated he had no objection. Mr. Rinker asked if the time limitation set forth in the condi- tioes of approval could be extended to 18 months or 2 years, rather than the 'Normal 6 months. The Council agreed a 2 -year time limit would be per missible: tics. Councilman Thom expressed objection to the proposed service sta- Q/ X 110. 7P-125: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -125 for tion, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the following revised Interdepartmental Com- mittee recommendations, amended by Council discussion: (1) a. That dedication shall be made to the City of Anaheim on streets within the area according to the Circulation Element of the General Plan Highway Rights of-Way Nap and in accordance with Area Development Plan No. 109, Exhibit "B." b. That the owner of subject property shall deed to the City of Mahan the westerly 54 feet of the easterly 55 feet of subject property for new street and public utility purposes: in conformance with Area Develop- ment Plan No. 109, Exhibit "3," and that a pre determined price for the eas- terly one foot of subject property shall be calculated and an irrevocable offer of dedication of said one foot for street widening purposes shall be made by the developer and submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim. The cost of said. one -foot strip shall include land and a proportionate share of the utilities and the street improvement costs. c. That the owner of subject property shall conditionally dedicate to the City of Anaheim the southwesterly 54 feet of the northeasterly 55 feet of subject property for new street and public utility purposes, con ditioned upon development of the State -owned property to the north of subject property and determination by the City that need for the street exists, and that a pre determined price for the northeasterly one foot of subject property shall be calculated and an irrevocable offer of dedication of said north- easterly one foot for street widening purposes shall be made by the devel- oper and submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim. The cost of said one -foot strip shall include land and a proportionate share of the utilities and street improvement costs. (2) a. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along the new north/south street located adjacent to the easterly boundary of subject property such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer at the time the property is developed; and that the owners of subject property shall install street lighting facilities along Santa Ana Canyon Road and the pro- posed new north /south street proposed along the easterly boundary of subject property as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with the standard.plans on file in the office of the Director of Public Utili- ties at the time the property is developed; and that a bond in an amount and fors satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 72 -197 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972. 1:30 P.M. b. 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 all engineering requirements and street lighting facilities along the new street proposed along the northeast boundary of subject property. Said improvements shall be required upon the acceptance of dedication of said street by the City of Anaheim. (3) That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Should subject property develop prior to the construction of the proposed major storm drain facility east of Imperial Highway and extending from Santa Ana Canyon Road to the River- side Freeway, then subject facility shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. Necessary easements for subject facility shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. The owners of subject property shall be reimbursed as other properties in the tributary area develop. Should said facility be constructed prior to the development of this property, then the owners of subject property shall participate in the cost of the trunk drainage facility for the entire tributary area. Said participation shall be computed at the same ratio to the total cost of improvements as the area of subject property within the tributary area is to the total area to be served by said drainage facility. (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 as required and deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. (6) That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. (7) That any parking area lighting proposed within 120 feet of the easterly boundary shall be down lighting of a maximum height of 8 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the resi- dential integrity of the area. (8) That the unpaved portion of the Santa Ana Canyon Road right of -way and the center median island for the frontage of subject property shall be landscaped, including irrigation facilities, and that plans for said land- scaping shall be submitted to and approved by the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. The City Council re- serves the right to amend or delete the assumption of maintenance of the re- quired landscaping if Council policy changes. (9) That the S.A.V.I. Company canal easement be landscaped and maintained by the developer; a landscape plan for this area shall be approved by the Development Services Department. (10) That the completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon the granting of Variance No. 2310. (11) That the owners of subject property shall grant to the owner of the property adjacent to the west a blanket irrevocable license or ease- ment, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, for vehicular ingress, and egress across subject property. After approval by the City Attorney, said documents shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder. (12) That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with conceptual plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, revised, provided however, that pre- cise plans and elevations, including signing, lighting, roofing, and land- scaping treatment shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. (13) Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12, above mentioned, shall be com- pleted. 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 two years from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant. (14) That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (71 -72 -21 C -1) 72 -198 City Hall. Anaheim._ California 90UNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson,Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -125 duly passed and adopted. RESOWTION 140. 7M-126: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -126 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2310, in part, granting Waivers "a "c "d and "h subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee. recommendation, Waivers "b "e "f "g and "i" having been withdrawn by the Applicant: (1) That this variance is granted subject to the completion Reclas- sification No. 71- 72 -21, now pending. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2310, IN PART. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -126 duly passed and adopted. C INUEU' PUI.II mows CONDI'umuL USF P RM IT X O. 1283: Submitted by Henry and Jnsephone Schinhofen, to establish a baseball batting range with inciden- tal rental of bicycles and food salts on R -A zoned property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, opposite the intersection of Kingsley Street and Lincoln Avenue, with waiver of: a. Maximum structural height. Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers (2:45 P.M.). Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Michael J. Garen, Young Real Estate Company, Agent for the Applicant, and public hearing scheduled March 14, 1972, at which time the hearing was con- tinued to this date, at the request of Mr. Garen. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission, and read the findings of the City Planning Commission setting forth the basis for their denial. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Roberts advised that the pro posed entrance to Anaheim Beach would be approximately 400 feet east of sub- ject property, and that the Parks and Recreation plans therefor indicate the area east and south of subject property would be utilized as parking area. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and wished to address the City Council. Michael J. Garen, Agent for the Applicant, displayed an artist's rendering of the proposed project. Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chambers. (2:50 P.M.). Mr. Garan, in answering the objections of the City Planning Commis- Sion, stated he understood from the City Engineer's office that the proposal would not create any conflict with City regulations on ingress, egress or traffic flow, nor cause any more traffic hazards than the proposed parking lot concept for the Anaheim Beach project. 72-199 Citv Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 1J 1972. 1:30 P.M. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Garen explained the devices proposed to minimize the noise intrusion on the adjacent single family homes to the west, and stated the hours of operation would be from 10:00 or 10 :30 A.M. to 10 :00 or 10 :30 P.M., and the request for rental of bicycles and food concession is to offset the fact that batting cages would be used more or less on a seasonal basis. Mr. Garen concluded by stating that if the City Council did not feel the requested use for subject property was appropriate, he felt the owners should be advised as to what would be an appropriate use other than as a parking lot. position. Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council in op- Norman Cromie, 516 Westgate Drive, whose property is adjacent to the batting cages proposed at the southwest end of subject property, pre- sented a petition in opposition purportedly signed by 99% of the area resi- dents to the west, and a photograph of a typical batting cage operation. He expressed objection to the proposal on the basis of noise and debris. Ray McRaven, 532 Westgate Drive, stated the same objections as Mr. Cromie. The Mayor invited the Applicant's Agent to again address the Coun- cil briefly. Mr. Garen stated he also had a petition in favor of subject pro- posal, but had not submitted it. He contended the operation proposed would have a pleasing appearance and would not be a detriment to the area. It was determined sufficient evidence had been submitted, and Mayor Dutton declared the hearing closed. RESOI1UTIQN NO. 723' -127: Councilman Stephenson stated he felt the proposed arrangement of the batting cages and the resulting noise of the operation would not be compatible with the area, and thereupon offered Resolution No. 72R-127 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1283. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1283. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -127 duly passed and adopted. PUBIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71 -72 -31 AND VARIANCE ND. 2333 Submitted by Clarence Wagner, requesting a change of zone from 1-A to R-1, to estab- lish a 33-lot subdivision on property located on the east side of Sunkist Street, south of South Street, with waivers of: a. Maximum fence height. b. Minimum front setback. c. Minimum cul- de-sac width. d. Minimum lot width. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -47, recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con ditions: 1. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 7 2- 200 City Hall. Anaheim. California COt3ICIL MUTES April 11. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. 2. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in -lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the build- ing permit is issued. 3. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro- perty, Condition No. 1, 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 condition is complied with within 180 days from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -48, approved said variance in part, granting Waivers "a "c and "d and grant- ing Waiver "b" conditionally, subject to conditions. The City Clerk presented an excerpt of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held April 3, 1972, requesting that the City Council make the determination as to the responsibility for maintenance of the required landscaping for subject variance. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject pro- perty, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and advised that a 2- acre parcel on which a home is constructed has been deleted from the original 10 -acre tract. He added that the Petitioner had submitted revised plans showing a minimum lot setback of 23 feet rather than the originally requested 20 feet; and the City Planning Commission had approved this request on condition that panelled, vertical, lift -type garage doors be installed on any garage opening directly to the street. Discussion followed on the feasibility of requiring automatic gar- age door openers to assure automobiles would not block the sidewalk when parked on the garage approach. Councilman Thom suggested moving the sidewalk adjacent to the curb- ing to increase the setback area by having the parkway area lie between the sidewalk area and the lot line. Councilman Pebley concurred. The City Attorney noted that the cul -de -sacs were proposed to be narrower than required and advised that if at some time in the future the street was widened, the City then would have to acquire more property for that purpose. Mr. Roberts noted there had been concern expressed at the City Plan- ning Commission meeting about the landscaping of the parkway on the north side of Jamison Street. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and wished to address the City Council. C.J. Queyrel, Anacal Engineering Company, Agent, stated that the Developer would install the sidewalk and parkway area in either of the two methods discussed. Referring to panelled, vertical -type garage doors, he advised that the architect for the project has made a study and has,recommended they not be used since they have not proven satisfactory. He stated the latest plot plan that was approved called for conventional doors and automatic garage door openers on every lot in the subdivision and he requested approval on that basis, with 23 -foot minimum setback on all lots except Lot 26 which is on a cul-de-sac and has a proposed front setback of 21 feet. He added that if this setback is not permissible on that lot, they will be required to build a two-story home on the lot. Mr. Queyrel noted that the block wall along the north side of Jami- son Street would be built on Mr. Wagner's private property, and Mr. Wagner has agreed to maintain it; however, he does not wish to maintain the park- way landscaping adjoining the wall, although the developer will install the sprinkling system. 72-201 Citv Hall. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1,972. 1 :30 P.M. Referring to the suggestion that sidewalks be constructed adjacent to the curbing, Mr. Queyrel noted that if this method is decided upon their request to delete Lot No. 26 from the 23 -foot setback requirement no longer would be necessary. Mr. Queyrel displayed a photograph of a block wall similar to the one proposed by the Developer and requested deletion of recommended condition of approval No. 5 on subject variance, calling for the design of the 8 -foot masonry wall and adjacent landscape treatment to be by a licensed landscape architect. The Mayor aked if anyone else wished to address the Council in fa- vor of subject application. Ann Madison, Madison Real Estate, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Agent, requested that maintenance of the parkway landscaping adjacent to the block wall on the north side of Jamison Street be the responsibility of the City rather than of Mr. Wagner, the present property owner, since his advanced age would make it difficult for him to maintain. Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council in op- position; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. City Engineer James Maddox suggested that Condition No. 4 of the Variance be changed to require-a 4 -foot sidewalk width rather than 5 feet, since 4 feet is the standard requirement. In reply to Councilman Stephenson's inquiry as to where water and gas meters, etc. would be installed if the sidewalks are adjacent to the curbing, the City Engineer advised that these would be installed in the park- way area between the sidewalk and lot line. Council discussion determined that automatic garage door openers would be an option of the Developer. RESOLUTION NO. 3 2R- -128: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R- 128 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Corr mission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (71 -72 -31 R -1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILIEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILWN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -128 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTIO N0. 72R-129: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -129 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2333, in part, granting Waivers "a "c and "d and granting Waiver "b" conditionally, subject to the following City Planning Commission recommendations revised by Council discussion: 1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Re- classification No. 71- 72 -31. 2. That no building setback shall be leas than 23 feet from the front property line, with the exception of Lot 26 which may have a setback of 21 feet; provided, however, that all sidewalks within the subdivision shall be constructed adjacent to the curb which will then provide sufficient distance in front of the garages to park automobiles without having them protrude over the sidewalk. 72- 202 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972. 1:30 P.M. 3. That the 8•foot masonry wall proposed along the north side of Jamison Street shall be constructed on private property (on the R-A parcel north of Jamison Street) as stipulated by the Petitioner. 4. That the parkway along the north side of Jamison Street shall be 8 feet wide. The sidewalk shall have a minimum width of 4 feet and shall be placed adjacent to the curb. The uncemented portion of the parkway adjacent to the 8 -foot masonry wall shall be provided with permanent irrigation facili- ties and shall be planted with trees on 24 -foot centers and additional land- scaping in the form of shrubs and ground cover. Said landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parkway Maintenance Superintendent and the Development Services Department. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in con- formance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 7, sub- ject to the provisions of Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 4 above mentioned. 6. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2333, IN PART. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-129 duly passed and adopted. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 7754 REVISION N0. 1: Developer Adam Gittelson. Property located on the east side of Sunkist Street, south of South Street, contain- ing 33 proposed R-1 zoned lots. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held March 20, 1972, approved said tentative map, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7754 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-31 and Variance No. 2333. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6 -foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the west property line separating Lot Nos. 1 through 5 and Sunkist Street and along the north property line of Lot No. 1, provided, however, that said wall shall be stepped down to a maximum height of 30 inches in the required front yard of said Lot No. 1. Reason- able landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following in- stallation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsi- bility for maintenance of said landscaping. 4. The City Council reserves the right to amend or delete the assumption of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 7. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and /or alley openings to Sunkist Street, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 8. Drainage of Tract No. 7754 shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. Standard 25 -foot radius curb returns with 15 -foot radius pro perty line returns shall be built at the intersection of Sunkist Street and Jamison Street. 72- 203 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES Apr A 11. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. 10. That the 8 -foot masonry wall proposed along the north side of Jamison Street shall be constructed on private property (on the R -A parcel north of Jamison Street) as stipulated by the petitioner. 11. That the parkway along the north side of Jamison Street shall be 8 feet wide. The sidewalk shall have a minimum width of 5 feet and shall be placed adjacent to the curb. The uncemented portion of the parkway ad- jacent to the 8' -foot masonry wall shall be provided with permanent irriga- tion facilities and shall be planted with trees on 24 -foot centers and ad- ditional landscaping in the form of shrubs and ground cover. Said land- scaping shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parkway Main- tenance Superintendent and the Development Services Department. The main- tenance of the landscaping shall be the responsibility of the adjacent pro- perty owner. Following Council discussion, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, Tentative Map, Tract No. 7754, Revision No. 1, was approved, subject to the City Planning Commission recommendations, amending Condition No. 11 as follows: "11. That the parkway along the north side of Jamison Street shall be 8 feet wide. The sidewalk shall have a minimum width of 4 feet and shall be placed adjacent to the curb. The uncemented portion of the parkway adjacent to the 8 -foot masonry wall shall be provided with perma- nent irrigation facilities and shall be planted with trees on 24 -foot cent ters and additional landscaping in the form of shrubs and ground cover. Said landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of the Park way Maintenance Superintendent and the Development Services Department." MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMWSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held March 20, 1972, pertaining to the following applica- tions were submitted for City Council information and consideration: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1281: Resolution No. PC72 -57, amending Resolu- tion No. PC71 -245, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1281, in part, to correctly state the legal description of said property contained in Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1281. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -57, approved amendment of Resolution No. PC71 -245, correcting the legal des- cription for Conditional Use Permit No. 1281. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1294: Submitted by Everett. Miller, to permit on -sale liquor in.an exi"sting on C-1 zoned property located at 2170 West Bali Road, which is on the south side of Ball Road, east of Brookhurst Street, with waivers of: a. Accessory uses permitted. b. Landscaped front setback. c. Screen landscaping requirement. d. Minimum interior parking area landscaping. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 50, granted said conditional use permit in part, subject to conditions, one of which requires discontinuance of rental use of the residential structure on subject property in one year, to expire March 20, 1973. CONDITIONAL USE PERT N0. 1295: Submitted by Everett Miller, to estab- lish a 111 -unit, planned residential development on R-3 zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, east of Brookhurst Street, with waivers of: a. Minimum building site area. b. ?tinier building site width. c. Arterial Highway setback. d. Minimum distance between buildings. e. Maximum well height in the front setback area. f. 6-foot solid masonry wail required where development abuts a single family zone. g. Requirement that a lot abut a public street. 7 2- 204 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11, 1972. 1 :30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -51, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. The foregoing actions were reviewed by the City Council and no further action taken. T AT]VF MAP. TRACT NO. 5162. REVISION NO. 4 Developer Warmington Con- struction Company. Property located on the north side of Ball Road, east of Brookhurst Street, containing 112 proposed R -2 zoned lots. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held March 20, 1972, approved said tentative map, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5162, Revision No. 4, is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1295. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in -lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7, That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a man- ner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That the owners of subject property shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 10 feet in width on the west side of the exist- ing alley from Ball Road to Minerva Avenue for alley purposes. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, Tentative Map, Tract No. 5162, Revision No. 4, was approved, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. m&L 10P. ;RAPT NO. 7676. (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68- 69 -32): Developer American National Housing Corporation of Fountain Valley, located on the east side of Kellogg Drive, south of the Yorba Linda Freeway, containing 47 proposed R -2 -5,000 zoned lots. The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said Final Map conforms substantially with the Tentative Map previously approved, that bond has been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval, and required fees paid. On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Roth moved that Final Map, Tract No. 7676 be approved, subject to approval of required bond by the City Attorney's office. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WOLUVON j0. 72R-130 AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 635-B: In accordance with recom- mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R-130 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A' CONTRACT TO LOWEST416SPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM-. ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IM- PROVEMENT: THE SYCAMORE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM STATE COLLEGE BOULE- VARD TO BUTTONWOOD STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER 140. 635 -B. (R.J. Noble Company $47,600.85) City Hall. Anibgim. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -130 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-131 WORK ORDER NOS. 638-A AND 639-B: In accordance with tecommendatious of the City Engineer, Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -131 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM- ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC 'IF PROVEMENT: THE PACIFICO AVENUE-LEWIS STREET STREET AND STORM DRAIN I14- PROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NOS. 638-A AND 639 -B. (Griffith Company- $39,609.78) Roll Call Vote: Refer to Resolution Book. Roll Call Vote: Refer to Resolution Book. 72-205 AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-131 duly passed and adopted. 1972 -73 WEED ABATEMENT CONTRACT:, On recommendation of the Fire Chief, Council- man Stephenson moved to defer award of contract on the 1972 -73 Weed Abate- ment Contract for two weeks. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -132 WORK ORDER NO. 793: Councilman Stephenson offered Reso- lution No. 72R-132 for adoption. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE MANZANITA PARK GRADING (NORTH END OF RIVIERA STREET), IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 793. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC I1- PROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORI- ZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PRO- POSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened May 4, 1972, 2:00 P.M.) AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-132 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-133 DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 721-133 for adoption. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Placentia Unified School District; Jack W. Ruubaugh; Placentia Unified School District; Orange Unified School District; Claude A. Sherwood; Warren J. Ter 72-206 City Hall, AgOpie.. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 11. 1972. 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -133 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTIQp NQ. 7 ?R 114 COWITIO IAL DES► CCTIOR: Councilman Thom offered Resolu- tion No. 72R -134 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CONDITIONAL DEDICATION OF LAND FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (patty Lee and Verlee J. Rowland South side of La Palma Avenue, between Citron and West Streets.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOS: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 728-134 duly passed and adopted. TAX C01wTag SALE NO. 1115 AP129- 051 -J,8: Notice of intent to sell property at public auction listed as AP129- 051 18, under Tax Collector Sale No. 1115 was submitted, together with report of the Right- of-Way and Land Section re- commending no objection. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Clerk was directed to inform the Orange County Tax Collector that the City of Anaheim has no objection to the proposed sale, as recommended by the Right -of -Way and Land Section. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF MATERIAL 15KV URD CABLE: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of 30,000 feet of 15KV URD Cable for the Electrical Division, as follows, and recommended acceptance of the alter- nate bid of General Electric Supply on the basis of quality inspection, de- livery and price: TOTAL Ate. INCLUDING TAX General Electric Supply, Anaheim, Original request 30,000 feet $7,654.50 Alternate bid 50,000 feet 11,851.88 Alcan Cable, Fullerton 30,000 feet 8,328.60 Grammar Electric, Anaheim 30,000 feet 8,662.50 Westinghouse Electric Supply, Anaheim 30,000 feet 9,808.47 Maydwell- Hartzell, Los Angeles 30,000 feet 9,855.41 On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth, the alternate bid of General Electric Supply Company was accepted and pur- chase authorized in the amount of $11,851.88, including tax. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHAS$, OF MATERIAL $I,ACEBURN CONNECTORS AND SLEEVES: The City Manager reported on the recommended purchase of 775 Blackburn Connectors and 1,400 Connector Sleeves, and advised that the sole vendor, General Electric Supply Company, has submitted a quotation for said material in the amount of $9,926.44, in- cluding tax. He thereupon recommended the purchase be authorized. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, purchase was authorized in the amount of $9,926.44, including tax, as recomr mended by the City Winegar. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIM, T THE CITY: The following claims were denied, as recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on emotion by Councilmen Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom: 72- 207 r-- MOTION CARRIED. City Hall. Anaheim Cam, #Q is COUNCx, amigo April 11,, 1972, 1; 30 P.M. a. Claim submitted by David S. Dettorre, for purported personal property damages sustained on or about February 22, 1972, as a result of driving his car into an anchor guy wire on an electrical pole. b. Claim submitted by Francis Maenello, for purported personal property damages sustained as result of driving his car over a piece of copper wire, purportedly left by a "light repair crew," which ruined his tire. RESOLUTION J 4R -13 HOJELIr I ATELLA XATION INA,AB TTD) Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 7.2R "135 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED HOWELL- KATELLA ANNEXATION. (INHABITED) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-135 duly passed and adopted. BQAR gr Aw Ts psol dTICN SANTA Olt R,IVV SANTIAQO CREEK 8 PI AB IIOLE ZATI Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 72-287 was submitted requesting endorsement of an implementation pro- gram of the Santa Ana River-Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan. The City Manager recommended the program be endorsed as a general guide, however, he questioned the fact that the Board of Supervisors was asking for representation on the Greenbelt Organization Committee from other Orange County cities not involved in the plan. Mayor Dutton invited interested parties to address the Council. Arthur Harvey, 1129 Adair Place, a member of the Izaak Walton League and of the Greenbelt Coordinating Committee which is composed of members from various Orange County conservation groups, expressed appre- ciation for the action taken by the Board of Supervisors. Referring to Mr. Murdoch's comments about cities not involved in the Greenbelt Plan being requested to have a representative on the Green- belt Organization Committee, he noted that each of the 10 cities located within the Greenbelt Corridor is requested to appoint a Councilman as rep resentative, but there would be only one person to represent the other 16 cities not in the Greenbelt Area. Mr. Harvey urged the City Council to endorse the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Gail Harmon, 1772 Crestmont Place, Costa Mesa, a member of the Tri- County Conservation Board and the Orange County Greenbelt Committee, reviewed some of the background on the Greenbelt Plan and commended the City of Anaheim for its Anaheim Lake and proposed Anaheim Beach projects. He requested the City appoint a Councilman to the Greenbelt Organization Committee and participate in the program. William Grady, 1100 Miramar Place, Fullerton, representing the Open Space Action Group of Project 21, asked that the City take positive action on the request of the Board of Supervisors. 72-208 City Hall. 4nabeim. C JN S Anvil 11. 197;. 1:,30 Chuck Bolin, 9197 El Cortez, Fountain Valley, representing the Sierra Club, stated their organization also supported the plan. Mr. Harvey, noting that a Citizen's Committee composed of five persons from each city also was recommended, submitted a list of names for such a committee. RESO,IATION N0. 72R -k36: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -136 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ENDORSING THE SANTA ANA RIVER SANTIAGO CREEK GREENBELT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R! duly passed and adopted. CRAKE WRY BOARD OF spERvImits R TIQ> G SQLi1 SALES peX wpS }''QR GREENBEI PR JEFCT: Resolution No. 72- 315.of the Orange County Board of Supervi- sort was submitted urging Orange County cities to set aside for County -wide efforts such as bicycle trails, greenbelts and such other projects that will improve, the environment of the County the 1% sales tax to be received from gasoline. The City Manager advised that the revenues to be received from this gasoline tax for the coming fiscal year are estimated to be about $315,000.00; however, it was his opinion consideration of disposition of these funds should be done at the same time budgetary requests are studied since a preliminary review of 1972 -73 budget requests shows some of the proposed projects could be included in the categories the Board of Super- visors recommends these funds be used. Council discussion followed and, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council expressed concurrence with the intent of the Board of Supervisors Resolution, investigation into the possibilities and means therefor to be undertaken. MOTION CARRIED. CORESPQ.DECE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. City of Costa Mesa Resolution No. 72-26 Objecting to any modification of the distribution of sales and use taxes throughout the State, which would base said distribution upon the population factor or other means, and declaring their reasons therefor, b. City of Roseville Supporting the reintroduction of legisla- tion similar to S.B. 1373 and requesting C.M.U.A. to take the necessary ac- tion to have such a bill introduced. c. City of Buena Park Resolution No. 4580 Opposing Assembly Bill 232. d. State Water Resources Control Board Notice of Public Hear- ing Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California. e. Community Center Authority Minutes March 20, 1972. f. Cultural Arts Commission Minutes March 3, 1972. g. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of February, 1972: Electrical Division Utilities Department. h. Community Redevelopment Commission Minutes March 15, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANqE N0. 3022: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3022 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 72-209 Citv 411, Angheim, Californi CON 10100=6 04 1A. j,,972„ 1;30 P.M. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32,190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PARKING. (No Parking At Any Time (82) Portions of Lemon Street, (83) Portions of Broadway.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3022 duly passed and adopted. ORMANCE NO. 3023: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3023 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(53) C- R) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: 'Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3023 duly passed and adopted. ORDNANCE 119. 3024: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3024 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-17 1- 3) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thou and Dutton NOES: COUNCIII'EN; None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared _Ordinance No. 3024 duly passed and adopted. OIU INA,NCE NO. 3025; .Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3025 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLF 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71 -72 -26 C -1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Than and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3025 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE 3026: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3026 for first reading. AN (NtDINAnCE OF THE CITt OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-25 R-3) ORDINANCE N0. 3027: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance NO. 3027 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHIWA °MOM=IG TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70..71-57 R- 3) 72 -210 City Hall., Ana4►gie. Ca pia cagscivsummip April 11. 1912 1:30 P.M. Bid saw ccogiumm L oss P1811!IIT MD. 180 MEL9DAARDWNLOWIFITOF CENTER The City Manager reported a request received for approval of the plans for the addition to the Drug Prevention Center at Melodyland (Chris tian Center Church), and brought before the Council as an unscheduled item, since further delay may jeopardize a pledged donation of over $27,000.00 in services and labor. He added that the plans were received quite some time ago; however, approval was delayed because the parking facility proposals were incomplete and there now is a situation that requires Council decision on the parking requirements. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts submitted a copy of the plot plan for Council review, and advised that the proposed Melodyland Drug Prevention Training Center structure was indicated as an office and counselling center, and the entire staff, including part -time help, would not exceed 20 persons. He noted that these activities presently are being conducted in two trailers south of the main building. Mr. Roberts advised that the proposed use appears to be compatible with the existing use of the site; however, the present minimum 886 on -site parking facilities are potentially inadequate, some driveways are not as wide as required, and the C -R Zone interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping along Freedman Way do not meet specifications. With regard to the parking requirements, Mr. Roberts advised that if these are based solely on the number of seats in the auditorium, only 600 spaces would be required; however, since Melodyland representatives indicate that the pre school, school and adult meeting areas are used simultaneously with the auditorium, 1,210 parking spaces would be needed; if based on utiliz- ing all of the potential meeting areas in the complex at the same time, 1,490 spaces would be required. In reply to the City Manager, Mr. Roberts advised that the total number of parking spaces required if all of the adult areas only used simultaneously would be about 877. He further noted that Melodyland has a lease on additional property to the east, which is used for parking; however, since this lease has a 10 -day cancellation clause, the area is not =taken into consideration when calculating available parking. Mr. Murdoch, in reply to Council questioning, advised that very re- cent complaints about overflow parking have been received from adjacent pro- perties. Councilman Roth stated that recently he had observed excellent traf- fic control for one of their Sunday activities. He added that the activities at Melodyland are very diversified throughout both the day and week, and thus all facilities ordinarily would not be used simultaneously. Councilman Pebley expressed concurrence. In reply to Councilman Dutton, Mr. Roberts advised he understood the proposed structure would not be in use at the same time as the majority of the other facilities. Mayor Dutton invited a representative from Melodyland to address the Council. George Wakeling, 12892 Gilbert Street, Garden Grove, advised that the training center would be similar to operations the church has in other cities, and would be mainly on a 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. basis, five days a week; that they desire to train two or three persons at a time in their cen- ter, but no actual rehabilitation would be carried on in the Center. Referring to the complaints stated he believed some attendees had cilities rather than walk the greater ever, they mere attempting to correct about overflow parking, Mr. Wakeling been using the Hyatt House parking fa- distance from their parking area; how this situation. Mr. Wakeling advised that the Kiwanis Club has pledged $25,000.00 toward their training center and a contractor from Costa Mesa has pledged the $27,000.00 previously mentioned. 1 1 72 -211 Citv Hal1, Anaheim, Cali, Q n gOUNCI,L T S April 11, 1972. 1:30 P.M. Mr. Murdoch advised that no parking complaints have been re- ceived in the past three weeks. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the plans were approved as,submitted. MOTION CARRIED. HORACE MAW CULTURAL ARTS CER A.; Mr. Murdoch noted an action in the March 3, 1972, Cultural Arts Commission minutes to request permission to take vol- unteer cleaning and demolition crews into Horace Mann School in its pro- posed use as a Cultural Arts Center, and stated he had advised the Commis- sion that until the lease on the school actually is signed, the City can- not authorize utilization of the premises in any manner. SEANUmfamojazjimakipmbiga Mr. Murdoch advised the City of Orange had two annexation proposals along the Ridge Line scheduled before LAFCO the following day, and he understood Orange may request a delay for a change of boundary line back to the original ridge line. He stated he could not see any objection to the boundary change if requested, and had advised. the City of Orange, owners and developers that Anaheim would cooperate as long as it did not adversely affect the City of Anaheim. He further advised that one of the subject annexations is done in anticipation that Anaheim would annex a sizable portion of the property on the south slope of the ridge where an equestrian centered, residential area is planned, since both sides of the ridge at that point would be de- veloped conjunctively and Anaheim could best service the area with sewer and, water, although sewage would have to be pumped up to enter Anaheim's system. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Murdoch advised these facil- ities would be installed at the cost of the developer or owner of the pro perty; that the only cost to Anaheim would be installation of electrical facilities, and additional fire and police protection. Mr. Iturdoch advised that the Staff at one point had objected to one of the proposed annexations on the basis that it overlaps on the north side of the ridge in a way that did not appear logical; however, since that time development of the ridge in that manner seems appropriate. The City Attorney, noting that the majority of the land in these two annexations is in the Agricultural Preserve, stated that subdivision of such land for residential use would not be proper, and he had so ad- vised the developer. He further stated that, in his opinion, if Orange takes a different viewpoint, Anaheim should contest it. Mr. Murdoch advised that Orange had indicated it would also disapprove of subdivision of the Agricultural Preserve land for residen- tial use, although it would agree to a dissolution of the Agricultural Preserve under the same terms and conditions that the County has set up for this. Mr. Geisler advised that a memorandum of October, 1971, from LOCO stated that the County Counsel had ruled that the Agricultural Pre- serve would not prevent the from being annexed and that LAFCO could not impose any special new condition upon its annexation. He further advised it was his understanding the City Attorney of Orange felt the Agricultural Preserve could be subdivided without dissolu- tion as long as the zoning was agricultural, which would make the lot size one acre. Mt. Murdoch recommended that no_protest be made to the two annexa- tions proposed by Orange, nor to a delay if that is desired. The Council concurred. 72 -212 City IIa1,1. dim.. C}lifor a COIL mss. 4Aor$l ;A Am. 1:30 P,M. FAY L&PINGI Councilman Stephenson inquired why there was no landscaping at the point where Riverdale Avenue crosses the Freeway (La Palma overcross- ing.) The City Engineer advised that this evidently was the property re- cently relinquished to the City by the State of California. Mac. Msrdoch advised the situation would be investigated to see who reeponsibi]. it was, and the matter taken care of, or a further re- port would be mode to the Council. AmgAgNmull Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:35 P.M. City H].1. Apaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES April 18. 1972. 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: John Dawson CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR: John Collier CITY ENGINEKR: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. IpOCAnot Pastor Dean Humbert of the Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG S6LUTE: Councilman Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. GENERAL MUNICIPAL. ELECTION. APRIL 11. 1972 CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATI J: Pursuant to Resolution No. 72R-39, City Clerk Dene M. Daoust submitted;Certificate of Canvass of Returns of the Regular General Municipal Election held in the City of Anaheim, April 11, 1972, conveying the number of votes given at each precinct for each candidate,' and the number of votes given in the City to persons voted for the office of Councilman.