1969/09/10'69-558
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1969~ 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT' Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Schutte seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED' 4' 40 P · M,
City Clerk
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Californi~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~. 1969~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith Ap Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B~ Geisler
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph O. Pease
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Darwin Brown
Mayor Clark called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Dorman Buttram, of the Town Church, gave the Invo-
cation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Krein led the Assembly in the Pledge of Alle-
giance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: The City Council unanimously adopted a
Resolution of Appreciation to George "Pop" Miller, for his
many civic contributions to the City of Anaheim.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Mr, Lee Sale, of the City Personnel De-
partment, introduced new employees attending the Council meet-
ing as part of the City's orientation program.
Mayor Clark welcomed the new employees to the City Family.
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL - TIME LIMIT: Pursuant to Council
discussion held July 29, 1969, Mayor Clark announced that pre-
sentations before the City Council from the public will be lim-
ited to 5 minutes°
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held August 26, 1969,
were approved on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman
Krein,~ MOTION CARRIED,
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Schutte moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that con-
sent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen, unless
after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for
the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded
the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in
the amount of $756,760.i9, in accordance with the 1969-70 Budget, were
approved.
69-559
City Hal~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCI~ MINUTES - September 10~ 1969, 1:30 P.M.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-99 (AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
NO. 103):. Submitted by the First National Bank of Orange County, requesting a
change in zone from R-A to R-2 to establish a 10-unit, single-story apart-
ment complex, on property located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue,
west of Ninth Street.
Area Development Plan No. 103 was initiated by the City Planning
Commission to consider an Area Development Plan for 7 deep, narrow lots lo-
cated on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, west of Ninth Street~ said
property having a frontage of approximately 850 feet, and a maximum depth
of approximately 295 feet, and to consider alternate methods of development
and possible circulation patterns.
The City Planning Commission recommended said reclassification be
disapproved,and further recommended adoption of said Area Development Plan
in accordance with Exhibit "B".
Public Hearing was held at the meeting of September 2, 1969, and
continued to this date to allow re-examination of the subject property by
the City Council.
The City Clerk read letters from Mr. Gilbert E. Nash and Mr. Y.F.
Hammatt, submitted during the open meeting, in opposition to the subject re-
classification and favoring adoption of Area Development Plan No. 103, Ex-
hibit "B".
Planning Assistant Darwin Brown noted the location of the subject
property with the aid of a map posted on the exhibit wall, and described
the surrounding uses and zoning in the immediate area. In briefing the evi-
dence considered by the City Planning Commission he noted that all but one
of the owners of the 7 parcels included in the proposed Area Development Plan
were contacted relative to their intentions for the ultimate development of
their property. The owners of 4 of the parcels indicated that they wanted
to maintain the low-density residential environment of the area, and develop
their property for single-family homes. One property owner expressed flexi-
bility as to the future use of his property and indicated he was willing to
combine with other parcels for a single-family subdivision, or would consider
developing individually as R-2. One owner could not be contacted, and the
other owner is the petitioner in the subject R-2 zoning application,
Mr~ Brown outlined the four alternate plans for development which
were considered by the City Planning Commission, noting that development in
accordance with Exhibit "B" was recommended with 5,200-square foot, R-1 lots,
which could be developed in 2 segments (the four easterly parcels being com-
bined for development first to establish the street system, with the three
~-esterly parcels to be developed later.) He noted that no side-on lots would
be developed with this Alternate, and access to Orangewood Avenue would be
limited to one point.
Other Alternates presented to the Commission proposed R-2, R-2-5,000,
and R-1 development, with various street patterns, most of which would involve
several points of access to Orangewood Avenue and would create a number of
side-on lots, which result would be undesirable. Recommendation of Alternate
"B" was based on the fact that the majority of the property owners favored
single-family development and the surrounding area was essentially R-1 in
nature.
Mayor Clark asked if the Applicant was present and wished to address
the City Council.
Mr. Donald C. Caskey, Trust Officer df the Bank,stated that the pro-
perty has been held in trust since 1964 and two previous applications for de-
velopment were denied. He felt that the current proposal for a 10-unit de-
velopment was reasonable and that if the application is denied, they
would be denied the use of their property, as they cannot wait five or ten
years for someone else to develop. He felt that the subject application
should be considered on the merits of the proposed development as compared
69-560
City Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1969, 1:30 P.M.
to the present condition of .the.:-;F~x~pt~r~y Re,did-not. feel that. the.
proposed density on the one parcel would have an adverse effect on the
surrounding area,
Mr. William E. Swank, Authorized Agent of the Applicant, and
architect for the proposed development stated he recognized the residen-
tial nature of the area, and for that reason designed a low-density,
single-story, garden-type apartment development with only 32% lot cover-
age. He noted that no variances were requested and pointed out that the
first dwelling unit is located 76 feet from the rear property line~ to
protect the privacy of the adjoining r'esiden~s. The front setbaCks would
range from 20 to 46 feet, with side yards of 25 feet on one side~ and 9
feet on the other~
Most of the existing homes on the subject parcels were noted to
rear onto Orangewood Avenue, and Exhibit "B" also indicated development
of all homes in a rear-on fashion.
In answer to Council questions Mr. Swank advised that Exhibit
"B" was not acceptable to the Applicants, as it required lot assembly,
which was found to be impossible at this'time.
Mayor Clark asked if anyone wished to address the City Council
in opposition.
Mrs. William C. Knotts, 2076 Eileen Drive, submitted a petition
in opposition to the prOposed reclassification and favoring adoption of
Area Development Plan No. 103, Exhibit "B". She stated she represents
several hundred people living in the surrounding custom residential area
whose property taxes are among the highest in the City, and whose homes
are valued from $30,000 to $70,000. These residents feel that an apart-
ment development in the area would lower the resale value of their homes,
and would create a traffic hazard to school-age children.
Dr. M.D. Fairchild, 1589 Wakefield Avenue, suggested that the
Applicants sell the property to another party who is interested in de-
veloping it in another fashion. He asked Mr. Caskey if the Applicants
had not received other offers to purchase the property which had been
turned down. ~
Mrs. Ladonna Rhoads, 1598 Sim Place, spoke in opposition to the
proposed development and favored development in accordance with the
"Planned Community" concept, citing Lake Forest as a local example. She
also noted the development of the S & S Construction Company which in-
dicates it is possible to successfully develop such property with single-
family homes. She stated that several people would be willing to make
an offer on the subject property to develop in that manner, if the price
was not too high.
Mayor Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the City
Council to present new and different information; hearing no response,
he offered the Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Caskey stated that realtors in both Anaheim and Orange had
been given an opportunity to list the subject property and they had re-
ceived many inquiries concerning it; however, no concrete offers were
submitted other than the proposal from Mr. Swank. He stated that Mr.
Hammatt did offer to purchase the property for $23,000, a portion of
which would be paid in cash, with the balance to be carried as a first
trust deed. This offer was felt too low for the property.
Mr. Caskey noted the nature of the previous land use, which was
the operation of an orchard maintenance service, with a barn to house
spray rigs and tractors. The former owner also was authorized to conduct
a small wood-working operation on the premises. It was apparent that ~
the property could not be used for any productive purpose in its present
state; therefore, the present owners offered it for sale. He stated that
owners of the other subject parcels had been approached prior to the time
69-561
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M.
the property was put on the market, and the offer from Mr. Hammatt for joint
development was the only one received.
Mr~ Caskey called attenti~on to the fact that property in the immed-
iate area had been used until recently for raising turkeys, which he believed
was a more objectionable.use.
Councilman Pebley suggested that the Applicants may have to wait to
develop their property under the circumstances, and noted that many property
owners must wait before their land can be used for the purpose for which
they desire.
Mr. Caskey maintained that the proposed R-2 development would be
an improvement over the present state of development and indicated that there
was no opposition expressed at the first hearing before'the City Planning
Commission. He felt that 10 units would not create a traffic hazard, as
alleged by those now opposing the development.
Councilman Pebley pointed out that if the subject reclassification
is approved, the other parcels may also develop in the same manner, which
would have a considerable effect on the density.
Following discussion as to whether there had been any opposition in
the first Planning Commission hearing, Mayor Clark determined that a good
cross-section of evidence had been presented, and thereupon declared the
hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-514: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 69R-514
for adoption, disapproving Reclassification No. 68-69-99, as recommended by
the City Planning Commission~
Refer to Resolution Book.
A 'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF
THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (68-69-99) ~
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
AB SENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-514 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-515- Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 69R-515
for adoption, approving Area Development Plan No. 103, in accordance with
Exhibit "B", as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AREA
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 103, EXHIBIT "B".
Roll Call Vote.
AYES- COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Pebley and Clark
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN: Schutte
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-515 duly passed and adopted.
6g-562
City Hall, Anaheim., California~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10, 1969~ 1'30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70~7· Submitted by Paul B. Treat and
Lynman Booth, requesting a change in zone from R-A and R-3 to C-t, on Por-
tion A, and from R'A to R-3, on PortionB; property located atthe south-
east corner of Lincoln Avenue and Grand Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-
174, recommended said reclassification be approved~ subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1~ That the owners 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 Grand Avenue for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim
along Lincoln and Grand Avenues, including preparation of improvement
plans and installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other ap-
purtenant worR 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; and that a bond in an amount and form satis-
factory to the City of Anmheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the installation of the above mentioned requirements.
3. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Grand Avenue and all but
the easterly 140 feet of the Lincoln Avenue frontage for street lighting
purposes.
4. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Grand Avenue and all but the
easterly 140 feet of the Lincoln Avenue frontage for tree planting pur-
poses.
5. That a Parcel Map to record the approved division of subject
property be submitted to the City of Anaheim for approval and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
7. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter-
mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
8~ That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the
south and east property lines of Portion A; said wall to be required
along the easterly property line only where Portion "A" abuts the R-3
property to the east.
9. That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be pro-
perly shielded from view and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent
residential homes.
10o That any parking area lighting shall be lighted with down-
lighting a maximum 6-feet in height and shall be directed away from the
property lines to protect.the residential integrity of the area, on Por-
tion "A" only.
11. That subject development shall be served by underground~utilities.
12. That Condition Nos~ 1, 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, shall be
complied with within a period of 180 days from the date hereof, or such
further time as the City Council may grant.
13. That Condition Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, above mentioned~
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
14. That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as
each parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel;
PROVIDED, however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing
parcels of record and any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council
for lot split.
15. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim parr and recreation fees as required by City Council Resolution of
$75~00 per dwelling unit, which shall be used for parr and recreation pur-
poses, said amount to be paid at the time the Building Permit is issued.
Mr. Brown noted the location of the subject property, and outlined
the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area. He reported that the
Applicants are requesting C-1 zoning on that portion of the property front-
lng on Lincoln Avenue, with a depth of approximately 200 feet, and R-3 zon-
ing on the balance of the property so that it may be developed as a part
of a larger parcel to the south and east (Reclassification No. 68-69-67.)
69-563
City Hall, An.aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10, 1969, 1'30 P.M.
He advised that no plans were submitted with the application, however,
the C-1 portion will be developed in accordance with permitted~uses, and th~ R-3
portion will be developed as an apartment complex, combined with an existing R-3
parcel east and south of parcel B.
Mayor Clark asked if anyone present wished to address the City Council;
hearing no response, he declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO~ 69R-516: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 69R-516 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone
as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Com-
mission.
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. (69-70-7 - C-1
and R-3)~
Roll Call Vote.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT' COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-516 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST - ORANGE COUNTY KODOKAN JUDO DOJO: Request of Taro M. Ohashi was submitted
for exemption of the Orange County Kodokan Judo Do jo from payment of annual
business license tax for school located at 1412-D South Central Park Aven~e.
Also submitted was report of the City Attorney's office recommending approval,
as it was determined that the organization is a non-profit corporation, and
therefore not required to have a business license, under Section 3.04.130 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code~
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein, said
request was granted as recommended by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - TRAF~IC SIGNALIZATION - ACACIA STREET AND LA PALMA AVENUE: Request of
Jimmie L~ Colvin was submitted, accompanied by a petition with approximately
1,000 signatures, in favor of the installation of a traffic signal at the in-
tersection of La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street~ at Anna Drive.
Report of the City Engineer was also submitted, recommending priority
of four traffi6 signal installations for ~he~fiscal year 1970~71, listing ~Acacia
and La Palma aS Priority No. 4.
Mayor Clark asked if the recommendation of the City Engineer was ac-
ceptable to the petitioners.
Mr~ David J. Huarte, 1464 East La Palma Avenue, indicated he was the
closest resident to the intersection and asked when the budget funds would
be made available~
The City Manager reported that sufficient funds were in the current
year's budget to accommodate one more signalized intersection without addi-
tional fund allocations; however, four intersections were recommended by the
City Engineer for signalization during the 1970-71 budget year. Therefore, a
determination must be made as to which of these intersections.should receive
highest priority.
Mr. Huarte indicated that children attending three different schools
cross at the La Palma-Acacia Avenue intersection; that La Palma is an arterial
highway, heavily traveled by employees of the Autonetics facilities; that there
is a 40-mile per hour speed limit at the intersection, and witnesses are of
the opinion that a danger exists. Mr. Harte feared that a fatal accident
would occur unless signals were installed.
69-564
City Hall~ Anaheim, California~- COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~
1969~ 1:30 P.M.
During Council discussion it was noted that traffic had increased
on La Palma Avenue since the opening of the Chrysler plant in that vicinity
and ~_he overcrossing of the railroad tracks° It was felt that no urgency
existed at two of the four locations recommended by the City Engineer for
signalization next year (South and Sunkist and Ball and Sunkist.) However,
the two other recommended locations (Euclid and Glenoaks and the subject
intersection) were both used by school children and were felt to deserve
high priority.
The City Manager noted that the current budget allocation for
signals and safety striping is $258,800.; that if an additional allocation
of funds is made from the Council Contingency Fund signalization of both
of the high-priority intersections could be accomplished.
The City Engineer indicated that a transfer of funds in the amount
of $15,000 would be adequate to accomplish this if the Council so desired..
On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
signalization of the intersections of La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street~
and Euclid Street and Glenoaks Avenue was authorized during the current
budget year (1969~70), and transfer of funds was authorized from the Coun-
cil Contingency Fund, Account Number 100-899 to Account Number 462-922-55,
in the amount of $15,000. MOTION CARRIED.
DIRECTIONAL SIGN REQUEST - 1070 NORTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD (SOCIAL SECURITY'
OFFICE): Letter from Mr. Claude E. Taggart, District Manager, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Office, was submitted re-
questing that directional signs be installed on La Palma Avenue and State
College Boulevard, without charge, to direct the public to the Social Se-
curity Office at 1070 North State College Boulevard.
Report of the City Engineer was also sUbmitted recommending denial
of said request.
Mr. Walko appeared before the City Council on behalf of the re-
questing agency and outlined the difficulties experienced by elderly per-
sons in attempting to find the Social Security Office which opened on June
16, 1969. He noted that it is located deep within an L-shaped shopping
center and is not readily identifiable from either State College Boulevard
or La Palma Avenue. He explained that no funds were available from the
Federal government for such signs.
It was noted by Councilman Dutton that if the request is granted
the City could expect to receive many other such requests and felt that
this precedent should not be established.
At the conclusion of Council discussion it was moved by Council-
man Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein, that the request for signing be
denied. MOTION CARRIED.
LICENSE FEES - COIN-OPERATED LAUNDRY MACHINES: Consideration of license fees
for coin-operated laundry machines was continued from the meeting of July
15, 1969, to allow further Council study.
The City Clerk reported receipt of a total of 249 cards protest-
ing the "per machine" method of licensing, and recommending a change to
the gross receipts method. Mrs. Williams advised that 63 of the cards
received were unsigned, and the Balance were signed by owner'managers,
managers, and predominantly tenants of apartment developments .... It was
noted that 34 individual businesses are licensed to operate such machines
in the City of Anaheim.
Councilman Dutton observed that the matter of proper'licensing
of such machines has been before the City Council almost continuously
since 1961, and has cost the City a great deal of administrative staff
time and money, and should be decided once and for all.
69-565
City Ha.~l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~MINUTES - September 10~ .!969~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION' Councilman Dutton moved that the report submitted by the Finance Di-
rector at the meeting of July 15, 19i69, be received and filed together with
material submitted by Mr. Bloomfield and information submitted by the City
Clerk. Councilman Krein seconded the motion.
Councilman Clark requested a ruling from the City Attorney as to
whether he was eligible to vote on this matter since Mr. Bloomfield, of Web
Service Company,was a regular customer at Mr. Clark's place of business.
The City Attorney advised that the only prohibition against a Council-
man voting on an issue is where there is a conflict of interest involved between
the City and the individual or company contracting with the City; if there is a
direct financial interest involved, then a prohibition from voting would exist.
Any other possible conflict of interest which may exist, such as a close per-
sonal relationship, would not place a prohibition on voting, but would place
the matter at the discretion of the Councilman.
Mayor Clark asked if any Councilman objected to his participation in
the vote on this issue; no objection was indicated. Mayor Clark stated that
in his opinion license fees on coin-operated laundry equipment should be levied
on a gross-receipts basis, rather than on a per-machine basis, and he favored
some kind of change in the existing Code provisions; since there was no objec-
tion to his voting on the issue, he would cast his vote.
Mayor Clark noted there were several hands showing in the audience
and indicated, for the information of those present, that the matter was not
scheduled for public hearing, therefore, discussion was limited to the City
Council~ This statement was corroborated by the City Attorney.
A voice vote was taken on the foregoing motion; MOTION CARRIED. (Coun-
cilman Clark voted "No.")
Mr. Jim Townsend, 808 North Pine Street, stated that he brought this
matter before the City Council as Chairman of the Telephone Taxpayers' Committee;
that it was his understanding that the matter received a public hearing, which
was continued in order that the City might investigate the cost of policing
the licensing of these machines. He protested the fact that he was not noti-
fied several weeks ago when the item was scheduled on the Agenda.
The City Attorney advised that the matter Was not set for a public
hearing; that it was a legislative action of the City Council, not. requi~ing_a
public hearing, therefore, the Council may h~ar only those persons whom they
choose to hear on the matter. He noted that the Council has concluded their..
aCtion and no further deliberations are necessary, and Mr. ToWnsend or anyone
else may speak only at the'invitation~of the City Council. OtherWise, there~.~
would be no method of regulating the conduct of the meeting.
Mr. Townsend felt that the question of whether this. was a continued
public hearing was left unanswered and stated that if some change was not made
in the method of taxation of coin-operated laundry machirms, in all probability
they would have to again 'resort to the Courts to force other coin-operated ma-
chines, such as newspaper racks, etc., to be taxed in a like manner.
SIDEWALK WAIVER - 1231 BLUE GUM STREET (O,RANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE NO. 5553)' Cor-
respondence from Launer~ Chaffee and Hanna~ Attorneys for Transerv~ was sub-
mitted requesting waiver of sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveway approach,
and block wall in connection with development of a truck service station on
M-1 zoned property, located at 1231 Blue Gum Street.
The City Engineer recommended that the temporary waiver of sidewalk
requirements be granted, as no need presently existed for sidewalks in that
location.
In view of the fact that the City and County are deliberating the
proposed classification of Blue Gum Street, he recommended that bond be posted
for installation of curbs, gutters and driveway approach until such time as
the exact locations for same are determined. His office will determine the
ultimate cost involved and so advise the applicant.
69-566
City Hall, Anaheim, Californi~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M.
Regarding the requested waiver of block wall requirement Mr. Brown
reported that the applicants have been advised that a conditional use permit
would be required for the use proposed in this zone and that the waiver of
the block wall requirement could be included in that application~ if so
desired,
It was noted by the City Council that a 6-foot block wall would
be a rather ineffective screening device and felt that a cyclone fence
with appropriate landscaping would be adequate.
On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton moved
that temporary sidewalk waiver be granted, provided that no permanent
planting or permanent-type improvements be permitted within the area re-
served for future sidewalks, and that bond be posted for curb, gutter,
and driveway approach requirements on Blue Gum Street and Orange Avenue°
Councilman Krein seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Krein moved that the applicants be instructed to file
a conditional use permit for the proposed M-2 use, and include therein a
request for waiver of the~block wall requirement. Councilman Schutte
seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED.
DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Krein offered Resolution Nos. 69R-517 to 69R-519,
both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-517: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR WATER METER AND WATER VAULT
PURPOSES. (Robert E. and Valjean A. Anderson; Maur$ce I. and Helen Ao
Myers~ Harry Boand, Jr. and Catherine Jane Boand.)
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-518: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE
FACILITIES. (C. Michael, Inc~)
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-519: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(The Corsican.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES' COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 69R-517 to 69R:-519, both in-
clusive, duly passed and adopted.
FURCnASE OF EQUIPMENT:. The Assistant City Manager, Robert Mo Davis, reported on
the recommended purchase of a 3/4 Ton Pick-up Truck, and advised that McCoy
Ford has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $2,604.88,
including tax. He reported that there is only one unit remaining in stock,
and in view of the anticipated increase in cost for 1970 models recommended
purchase be authorized at this time. On motion by Councilman Pebley, sec-
onded by Councilman Dutton, said purchase was authorized as recommended.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-520' On recommendation of the Assistant City Manager~ Coun-
cilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 69R-520 for adoption.
Re~er to Resolution Book.
69-567
~ity_Hal.1, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 196~, 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
HIRING H. WALLACE JAYNES AND R.E. CAMPBELL DOING BUSINESS AS ORCA DIVING SER-
VICE TO PERFORM CERTAIN WORK ON NOHL RANCH LAKE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT EMPLOYING ORCA DIVING SERVICE. (Walnut Canyon
Maintenance Work - $8,500.00.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES' COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-520 duly passed and adopted.
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim submitted by Victor Azar, for return of.personal 'pro-
perty in the amount of $116.00 cash, confiscated by the Police D~partment on
or about June 20, 1968, was allowed, as recommended by the City Attorney, on
motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-521- Councilman Krein offered Resolution Noo 69R-521 for adop-
tion~
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY
CLERK AND DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO DESTROY ORIGINALS OF CERTAIN
RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CITY CLERK AND ANAHEIM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT~ (Conditional Use Permits.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES' COUNCILMEN · None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-521 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-522: Councilman Krein offered Resolution No. 69R-522 for adop-
tion~
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, WITH REFERENCE TO ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ON
BROOKHURST STREET WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON COMPANY AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-522 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 69R-523' Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 69R-523 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WITH REFERENCE TO MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS AND
SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF KNOTT AVENUE AND WESTERN AVENUE
WITH LINCOLN AVENUE (STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 214.)
69-568
Ci__ty Hall, Anaheim~ California,- COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES' COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-523 duly passed and adopted.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton:
a. Notice of Application - The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company, Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, Southern Pacific
Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company filed with the Public Utili-
ties Commission for authority to subject California intrastate passenger
fares to the same general increase of five per cent as that which became
effective on their interstate passenger fares on June 15, 1969.
b. Before the pUblic Utilities Commission of the State of Cali-
fornia - Application of Los Angeles Airways, Inc. , for an increase in
intrastate air charter rates.
c. City of Commerce Resolution No. 69-32 - Urging adoption by
the United States Congress of the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of
1969.
d~ City of San Clemente Resolution No. 67-69 - Expressing its
sincere commendation and appreciation to the agencies and participating
personnel thereof for their willing response and invaluable assistance
during the August 17, 1969, Anti-War Demonstration in San Clemente.
e. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of July, 1969.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO~ 2723: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2723 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-72 - C-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES' COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2723 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2724: Councilman Schutte offered Ordinance No. 2724 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-62 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES. COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2724 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2725~ Councilman Krein offered Ordinance No. 2725 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
69-569
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1969, 1:30 P.M.
AN ORDInAnCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (68-69-65 - R-3 Portion Only.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, $chutte, Pebley and Clark
NOE S. COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2725 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2726- Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 2726 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-64 - R-3)
ORDINANCE NO. 2727' Councilman Schutte offered Ordinance No. 2727 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-118(3) - C-l)
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS~: The following applications were pre-
sented by the City Manager to the City Council for their information:
a. Application submitted by Clarence Matthew Rach and'JosePh Carl
Radzik for On-Sale Beer, Original Application, for R & R Catering Company,
430 North Gilbert, RcA Zone (Anaheim Municipal Golf Course).
b. Application submitted by Donald and Peggy Behnke, for Off-Sale
Beer and Wine, Person-to-Person Transfer, for Seven-Eleven Market, 2437 West
Ball Road, C-1 Zone.
c. Application submitted by Antonion Villareal Miranda, for Off-
Sale Beer and Wine, Original Application, for Olive Market, 609 North Olive
Street, R-3 Zone, (Non-conforming Use).
d. Application submitted by Clarence and Thelma Bartley, for Off-
Sale Beer and Wine, Person-to-Person Transfer, for Seven-Eleven Market, 801
South Euclid Street, C-1 Zone.
No Council action was taken on the above applications.
Application Submitted by Ming and Choy Lan Jue and Stephen and
Lucia Moy, for On-Sale Beer, for premises located at 1046 North State College
Boulevard was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
City Attorney was authorized to file conditional protest with the Alcoholic
Beverages Control Board against said application, on the basis that the prem-
ises are presently located in the C-1 Zone, which does not permit the proposed
sale of alcob.olic beverages. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC DAi~CE PERMIT: Application filed by Mr. Charles A. Mull, for permit to con-
duct public dance on September 19, 1969, at the Nordic Buffet, 218 West Lincoln
Avenue, was submitted and granted subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, and provided that two officers and one matron be hired
to police said dance, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Coun-
cilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS' Councilman Krein moved for a 15-minute Recess. Councilman Pebley seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:05 P.M.).
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Clark called the meeting to order, all Councilmen present,
(3'20 P..M. ).
69-570
City Hall~ Anahei'm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M.
ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE NOt,6244° Action on request for C~y services on
property located at 10472 West Douglas Road was continued from the meeting
of September 2, 1969 to this date~ to obtain additional information on
the necessary capital outlay required to serve the property, an estimate
of the anticipated revenue, and permitted uses in an Agricultural Preserve.
The City Manager reported that his office has attempted to gather
the information requested by the City Council regarding outlay versus es-
timated revenues~ however, records lack the detailed information necessary
to identify this information by land uses Since the available data must
be averaged to obtain the information requested he pointed out that the
application of such figures to a specific situation would be of limited
value~
He reported that the capital investment required to serve property
similar to the subject parcel (based on computations of averages) would be
approximately $22,100. for the electrical lines, water lines, street work,
and sewer lines. This figure represents the adjusted cost after deducting
that portion of the cost which would ultimately be borne by the developer
of the property on the opposite side of the street. He noted that this
would allow the sewer line to be extended past the frontage of the subject
property to Cerritos Avenue.
M~. Harry Knisely, Attorney for the Applicants, pointed out that
extension of the sewer line to Cerritos Avenue would also take it past a
40-acre parcel to the north of the subject property, noting that services
are now within approximately 20 feet of the subject property.
The City Manager advised that the Applicants' share of the sewer
line installation would be $8,750.00, which is based on the $350.00 per
acre off-site sewer charge~ He noted that the largest part of the cost
to the Applicants would be for the installation of electrical lines, assum-
ing this would be a package arrangement whereby the property would be an-
~exed to the City and receive electrical service from the City. It was
also his understanding that the owner of the subject property was willing
to accept the obligation of paying the park and recreation in lieu fee,
as required by City Council Resolution~
Mr~ Murdoch advised that the electrical rate structure is set up
to provide for a return of the capital expenses necessary to serve the pro-
perty within 8 to 10 years~ However, the year-to-year operating costs are
difficult to analyze, due to the fact that only averaged data was avail-
able Which does not reflect information pertinent to one particular land
use ~
Councilman Pebley asked if a 25-acre trailer park would bring in
as much electrical revenue as an R-2-5,000 or R-1 development of compar-
able size.
Mr~ Murdoch replied that in his opinion a mobile home park would
return more per acre than an R-1 use.
Mr~ Knisely presented information obtained from the City of West-
minster, comparing the amount of land tax revenues derived from property
identical in size, but with different land uses, as follows: Single-family
use - $48.24; Multiple-family use - $83~52; Mobile home use - $87.12.
Mr~ Norman Smedegaard, Attorney representing Walters & Sons, pro-
posed Developers of the subject property, exhibited a chart prepared by
No~man Busch, Past President of the Western Mobile Home Association, com-
paring tax revenues based on a 10-acre parcel of property. The figures
represented a mobile home park developed with 10 units per acre (average
value $12,000~00) versus an R-I development (with homes valued at approxi-
mately $30,000,00.) He explained that these figures were obtained from
the County Assessor's Office, and represent typical developr~nts in Orange
County~
69-571
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCI~ MINUTES - September 10~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M.
He summarized the information appearing on the chart which indicated
that the City's share of the 18-year projected revenue on each 10-acre parcel,
including in lieu tax, property tax, sales tax, and revenue stamps, was
$125.000. from the single-family development, compared to $200,000. from the
mobile home park.
Mr. Smedegaard also noted that there are less school-age children
in the mobile home park, and that street maintenance and street-lighting
costs would be much lower.
The City Manager noted that the City receives an average of $26.00
per capita sales tax from all residents, and if residents of mobile home parrs
spend approximately the same amount as the average resident the total antici-
pated revenue would be approximately $107.00 per capita, representing the total
from all sources, such as liquor revenues, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes,
electrical and water services, etc. He observed that the estimated in lieu
tax figures appearing on Mr, Smede§aard's chart were very conservative~
Mr. Murdoch reported that the permitted uses in an Agricultural
Preserve were analyzed by the Staff, and it was found that a mobile home park
is no longer allowed by right in an area so designated.
Mr, Knisely reported that he had documentation on that point, indi-
cating that residential uses are prohibited by State Law in an Agricultural
Preserve. He distributed copies of the document entitled "Exhibit C - Agri-
cultural and Compatible Uses" to the City Council.
Councilman Dutton felt that a comparison should be made between mo-
bile home parks and industrial use of the property in order to be relevant to
the situation at hand. He noted that although a 15-year time limitation had
been placed on the Use Variance by the County it would be difficult to termi-
nate it at the end of that time.
Mr. Knisely stated that he was inclined to agree with this statement,
however, termination of so-called interim uses are being done in both Los An-
geles and Orange Counties. He noted that the provision would be included in
any title report on the property if it is sold during the interim.
M'r~ Knisely pointed out that the City is serving the PhoeHix Club,
and the trash transfer station nearby, noting that the latter development
was also originally opposed by the City; and that no such request for service
outside the City has been denied in the past.
Mr. Knisely did not feel that approval of the request would establish
a precedent for such a development in the northeast industrial area and stressed he
too felt the integrity of that area should be protected. He stated he would
not come before the City Council to request a non-industrial use in the north-
east industrial area in the near future.
Councilman Krein observed that he would be opposed to the request
for service if the City of Anaheim had control over the zoning of subject pro-
perty; however, inasmuch as the political body that does control zoning of the
property has approved the proposed land use, he would be inclined to grant the
request~ However, he noted that the City Council has denied a number of appli-
cations £or the development of mobile home parks on other so-called isolated
parcels in industrial areas.
Councilman Schutte suggested that the request be granted, subject to
annexation of the subject property. The City Manager noted that this proposed
practical problems, in that the only way to reach the property is through other
intervening County territory. If the intervening parcels were included in the
annexation the problem would be resolved; however, this may take several months
to accomplish. He suggested that if the request is granted the property could
be served, based on an annexation agreement by the Applicant and subject to
the payment of all fees at this time, such as park and recreation in lieu fees
and sewer and water connection fees, He noted that the City would prefer to
have the building permit issued and inspection made by the County, under pres-
ent zoning.
69-572
C~ity Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1.769~ 1'30 P.M.
Mr~ Knisely noted that the property owner and the developer were
represented at the meeting and are in total agreement with the conditions
as outlined and would complete the necessary documents for annexation of
the property to the City of Anaheim, and pay all fees enumerated by the
City Managers Mr. Smedegaard concurred with this statement.
MOTION: At the conclusion of Council discussion it was moved by Councilman
Schutte, seconded by Councilman Clark that the subject request for City
services be granted as recommended by the City Manager, subject to the
owner and lessee delivering to the City of Anaheim the necessary documents
agreeing to annexation by the City, and further subject to the payment of
all fees and charges which would be payable to the City if the property
was developed in the City of Anaheim, as stipulated to by Attorneys repre-
senting the Applicants~ with the building permit and inspection to be under
the jurisdiction of the County of Orange.
Roll Call Vote'
AYES. COUNCILMEN: Schutte, Pebley and Clark
NOES' COUNCILMEN' Dutton
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN: Krein
ABSENT' COUNCILMEN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PRE,EARING CONFERENCE' The City Attorney reported
that the Public Utilities Commission would conduct a Prehearing in San
Francisco on September 22, 1969, regarding proposed legislation to regu-
late the blocking of grade crossings by trains.
On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
the City Attorney was authorized to attend said conference on behalf of
the City of Anaheim. MOTION CARRIED.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - vOTING INSTRUCTIONS: Mayor Clark announced that
the Executive Committee meeting of the Orange County Chapter, League of
California Cities, would be held September 11, 1969, and his name had been
submitted in nomination for the office of Vice-President.
Mayor Clark further reported that one name had been offered by the
nominating committee for the post of Director, and two others were expected
to receive nominations from the floor. As voting delegate for the City of
Anaheim he requested voting instructions from the City Council. By general
consent, the Council instructed Mayor Clark to cast his vote for Mr. Duan~
Winters, from the City of Fullerton, for the post of Director.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION' At the request of the City Manager, Councilman Peb-
ley moved to recess to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing prog-
ress made in negotiations with employee organizations. Councilman Krein
seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED. (4:35 P.M.).
ADJOURNMENT: At the conclusion of Executive Session, all Councilmen returned to
the Council Chambers, and on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Coun-
cilman Krein, the meeting was adjourned. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED: 5:15
City Clerk