1972/11/14e.
72 -738
City Hall Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
ABSENT; COUNCILMEN: Dutton
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: John H. Dawson
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
FINANCE DIRECTOR: Mike Ringer
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Homer Wallace
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson
unanimously approved by the City Council and presented to Collette
Kelly, in conjunction with Loara High School Homecomming festivities.
"Dana Schoenfield Day November 17, 1972.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution extending sincere congratulations
to Master Chef Jack Sullivan of the Disneyland Hotel who, because of
his expertise and exemplary leadership, led the United States Culinary
Team to winning the Grand Gold Award, plus eighteen other Gold Medals,
in the 1972 Culinary Olympics, was unanimously adopted by the City
Council and presented by Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson to Mr. Sullivan.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting held October
1972, were approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas. Because of absence, Councilman Pebley abstained from voting on approval
of the minutes. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the
reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver
of reading is hereby given by all 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 FIfANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount
of $390,518.92, in accordance with the 1972 -73 Budget, were approved.
ENVIRONMENT4L IMPACT REPORT NO. 18 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71 -72 -53 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 6733): Filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 71 -72 -53 and Tentative
Tract 1io. 6733 for property located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, east
of Lakeview Avenue.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the Council on the findings of the
Environmental Impact Review Committee, stating that they felt each area of poten-
tial impact should have been covered in more depth, however, the report was sub-
mitted prior to the establishment of "interim guidelines The Committee ex-
pressed a concern relative to the impact of this development on the natural
resources in the area, and the noise and odors from the adjacent oil wells.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -290,
accepted E.I.R. No. 18 and recommended to Council that it be adopted as the
Environmental Impact Statement of the City Council providing an addendum be sup-
plied by the Developer relative to the impact of the development upon the natural
resources in the area.
Mr. Roberts read aloud a letter addendum addressed t the City Council,
dated November 13, 1972, containing additional mineral and gedlogy information on
subject property.
72 -739
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson stated he felt the letter- addendum clarified
any misconceptions about drilling oil wells on the subject property. He ques-
tioned Mr. Roberts whether or not the City regulated oil well drilling, to
which Mr. Roberts replied affirmatively.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
Environmental Impact Report No. 18, the letter addendum dated November 13,
1972, and the analysis of the Environmental Impact Review Committee were
received and adopted as the City Council Environmental Impact Statement.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71- 72 -53: Submitted by Harold M.
Williams, Martin S. Roberts and Fred M. Kay, requesting a change in zone from
County of Orange Al, to City of Anaheim RS -5000 for property located on the
north side of Orangethrope Avenue, east of Lakeview Avenue.
Public hearing scheduled October 10, 1972, was continued to this date
to allow developer to file the required Environmental Impact Report.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -230,
recommended approval of said reclassification subject to the following condi-
tions:
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.
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 building
permit is issued.
3. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
4. That the developer shall submit house, floor plans and elevations
to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval, as stipu-
lated to by the developer.
5. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro-
perty, Condition Nos. 1 and 4, above mentioned, shall be completed. The pro-
visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one
year from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the Council on the location and
surrounding uses of subject property, noting an oil well site on the property
to the north. The Anaheim General Plan has designated the area for low- medium
density residential development and the proposed RS -5000 would implement this
designation. He stated that based upon City ordinances relating to the dis-
tance required between an oil well and a structure, four of the proposed 52 -lot
subdivision would not be buildable at this time. Mr. Roberts advised that the
Applicant stipulated to the Planning Commission that he would submit house plans
and floor elevations prior to introduction of the ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent
was satisfied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Walt Keusder, Butler Housing Corporation, 5283 West Lincoln Avenue,
stated the recommendations were satisfactory to them.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone in opposition was present
and wished to be heard. There being no response, he ieclared the hearing
closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R- 527: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -527 for
adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance reclassifying subject
property as requested, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
72 -740
City Hill, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
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 AMEIlDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(71 -72 -53 RS -5000)
adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -527 duly passed and
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 6733: Developer, Butler Housing Corporation. Location of
property described above (Reclassification No. 71- 72 -53) and contains approxi-
mately 10.5 acres proposed for subdivision into 53 RS -5000 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of said Tentative
Tract Map No. 6733, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6733 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71- 72 -53.
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 in accordance with City Council policy, a 6 -foot masonry wall
shall be constructed on the south property line separating lot Nos. 1 through 10
and Orangethorpe Avenue, said wall to be constructed along the west line of lot
No. 1 except in the front setback area. Reasonable landscaping, including irri-
gation 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 Main-
tenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume
the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
5. 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.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
7. 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.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
9. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and /or alley
openings, to Orangethorpe Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
10. That a predetermined price for Lots A and B shall be calculated and
an offer of dedication of Lots A and B shall be made by the developer and submit-
ted to and approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final tract
map, said offer of dedication to be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map. The cost of Lots A and B shall include land and a proportionate share of
the underground utilities and street improvements.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Tenta-
tive Tract Map No. 6733 was approved, subject to the conditions recommended by the
City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONOENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 37 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72- 73 -11, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT X10. 1332 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7929, REVISION NO. 1): Filed in conjunction
with Reclassification No. 72- 73 -11, Conditional Use Permit No. 1332 and Tentative
Tract No. 7929, Revision No. 1 for property located in the Santa Ana Canyon in the
vicinity of Anaheim Hills at the southeast corner of Nohl Rand and Walnut Canyon
Roads, south of the Anaheim Hills Municipal Golf Course.
72 -741
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts explained that based upon information
contained in the original E.I.R. submitted, it was the opinion of the Environ-
mental Impact Review Committee and the City Planning Commission that certain
additional areas should have been considered. The City Planning Commission
received the Environmental Impact Report at their meeting held November 13,
1972, and recommended to the City Council that they not adopt the Environmental
Impact Report until the Developer submits a written addendum supplying infor-
mation to correct the deficiencies in the report relative to vehicular cir-
culation, school sites, noise impact studies, recreational facilities, type of
landscaping facilities for slope areas to prevent erosion, public utility fac-
ilities, and techniques to be used in grading of all slopes.
Mr. Roberts made reference to the addendum dated November 6, 1972,
received this morning in which he felt the areas of concern had been
discussed. Inasmuch as this addendum was also identical to the addendum
supplied for three other planned residential developments in the Anaheim Hills
area, the same Environmental Impact Review Committee analysis would apply.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson stated that inasmuch as the addendum clar-
ified the areas of concern, such as emergency access and circulation, noise,
schools, and landscaping, the Environmental Impact Report should be received
and adopted.
Councilman Thom stated he was opposed to adopting the E.I.R. and
addendum because they did not cover in depth the inadequacies pointed out by
the Planning Commission and Environmental Impact Review Committee, namely
ingress and egress in case of natural disaster, grading treatment of slopes,
instability of soil conditions and possible seismic reproduction in event of
earthquake.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson felt he could rely on the recommendations of
the City Engineering Department relative to matters of soil, compaction, and
grading.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
Environmental Impact Report No. 37 and addendum dated November 6, 1972, was
received and adopted as the City Council's Environmental Impact Statement. To
this motion Councilman Thom voted "no MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72 -73 -11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 1332): Submitted by Anaheim Hills /Texaco Ventures, requesting a change in zone
from R -A to R -2 to establish a 162 -unit planned residential development in the
Santa Ana Canyon in the vicinity of Anaheim Hills at the southeast corner of
Nohl Ranch and Walnut Canyon Roads, south of Anaheim Hills Municipal Golf
Course, with waivers of:
a. Lot frontage.
b. Minimum building site area.
c. Minimum building site width.
Public hearing scheduled October 10, 1972, was continued to this date
to allow Developer to file the required Environmental Impact Report.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -231,
recommended approval of said reclassification, subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded fp the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
4. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
5. 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.
T
72 -742
City Hall, 1pahaim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
6. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
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 one year from the date
hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant.
7. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -232,
granted said conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this conditonal use permit is granted subject to the comple-
tion of Reclassification No. 72- 73 -11, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 12.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the Council on the location of sub-
ject property, the requested waivers, and reported that the Applicant proposes
to subdivide subject property into a 162 -unit planned residential development,
with three additional lots being held in common for open space area. He explained
that since the proposed development is in the hillside area in Anaheim Hills, the
31.4 acre site will yield approximately 17.2 acres of level building pad area,
deducting private drives. The new buildable area is 14.4 acres on which 162 -units
would render a density of 11.2 units per net acre, or 33% lot coverage. Mr.
Roberts stated the proposed 162 -unit development was in conformity with the City
General Plan for the Anaheim Hills area.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent
was satisfied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Ron Dickerson of the R. H. Grant Company of California, Developer, 1665
South Brookhurst, expressed satisfaction with the recommendations.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone in opposition was present and
wished to be heard. There being no response, he declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -528: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -528 for
adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance reclassifying subject
property as requested, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning
Commission.
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.
(72 -73 -11 R -2)
adopted.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -528 duly passed and
RESOLUTION MO. 72R 529: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -529 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1332, subject to the recommendations
of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTIG CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1332.
Roll Call Vote:
City Hall, Anaheim, California
adopted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
The Mayor Pro Tem
COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Sneegas, Pebley and Stephenson
Thom
Dutton
72 -743
declared Resolution No. 72R -529 duly passed and
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7929, REVISION NO. 1: Developer, R. H. Grant Company of
California. Location of property described above (Reclassification No.
72- 73 -11) and contains approximately 30 acres proposed for subdivision into
162 R -2 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of said Tentative
Tract Map No. 7929, Revision No. 1, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7929, Revision
No. 1, is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 72 -73 -11 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 1332.
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 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.
5. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the
proposed functioning of the operating corporation, including but not limited to
the articles of incorporation bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding
to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other infor-
mation as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and
the purchasers of the project.
6. That the street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim
prior to approval of a final tract map.
7. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall include construction of drainage
facilities of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from
higher properties south of Santa Ana Canyon Road through said property to ultim-
ate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Reimbursement agreements may be
made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
8. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and /or alley
openings, to Nohl Ranch Road and Walnut Canyon Road shall be dedicated to the
City of Anaheim.
9. That public utility easements to serve the tract shall be dedi-
cated to the City of Anaheim as required by the Director of Public Utilities.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
Tentative Tract Map No. 7929, Revision No. 1, was approved subject to the
conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 10 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1341): Filed in
conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1341 for property located on the
east side of State College Boulevard, south of Sycamore Street.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts briefed the Council on the findings
of the Environmental Impact Review Committee, noting that the areas of potential
impact had been adequately discussed in the report eveii though the report was
submitted prior to the establishment of the interim guidelines and that the
format therein not followed. Mr. Roberts stated that the noise level of the
equipment, which was the main factor of concern expressed by the Environmental
Impact Review Committee, was quite throughly discussed at the public hearing
held by the City Planning Commission. Therefore, the Planning Commission ac-
cepted Environmental Impact Report No. 10 and recommen &ed that Council adopt
it as their Environmental Impact Statement.
72 -744
City Hell, 4naheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant was aware that the
City had a noise level ordinance, to which Mr. Roberts replied in the affir-
mative and that the Applicant stipulated the noise will not exceed levels
established in the ordinance.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
Environmental Impact Report No. 10 and the Environmental Impact Review Committee
Analysis thereto were received and adopted as the City Council's Environmental
Impact Statement. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1341: Submitted by Violet Van Delden,
to establish a carwash in the C -1 zone on property located on the east side of
State College Boulevard, south of Sycamore Street, requesting waivers of:
a. Outdoor uses.
b. Maximum building height adjacent to single family residential.
Review was requested by the City Council at their meeting held October
10, 1972, and public hearing ordered scheduled upon receipt of the required
Environmental Impact Report.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -243,
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1341 subject to the following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of !Anaheim along
State College Boulevard and the public alley to the south, 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 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; that street lighting facilities along State College Boulevard shall
be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance
with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of
Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City
of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the
above mentioned requirements.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
3. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be down- lighting of
a maximum height of six feet, which lighting shall be directed away from the pro-
perty lines to protect the residential integrity of the area.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That the final parking plan shall be approved by the Development
Services Department and any landscaped areas in the parking area shall be pro-
tected with six -inch high concrete curbs and concrete wheel stops shall be pro-
vided for parking spaces as required by the Development Services Department.
7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 provided, however, that the parking on the south side
of the property shall be redesigned with 90 spaces.
8. That Condition No. 1, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution or prior to
the time that the building permit is issued or within a period of one year from
the date hereof, whichever occurs first or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
9. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, above mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts noted the location of subject property, the
surrounding uses of the adjoining properties, C -1 to the north and south and
single family residential to the east, and the requested waivers. Mr. Roberts
explained that the Applicant is proposing to remove the existing single family
residential structure at the northeast corner of subject property and construct
an automobile carwash structure aligned in an eastwest direct on near the north-
erly property line, with related gasoline service facilities to be located on the
south side of the main carwash structure under a canopy, and an open automobile
polishing area to be located between the main carwash structure and the north
72 -745
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
property line. Mr. Roberts reported that the Applicant stipulated to the
Planning Commission that he would be willing to screen the outdoor polishing
area from view from State College Boulevard by some type of wall treatment.
Mr. Roberts stated that because the ingress and egress to the property would
be on State College Boulevard, and because of the orientation of the structure,
the major portion of the noise generated by the carwash facility would be dir-
ected out towards State College Boulevard and not towards the single family
residential area to the east.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or the Applicant's
Agent was satisfied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Robert Burglin, representing the Applicant, 517 South Archer, stated
the recommendations were satisfactory to them.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone in opposition was present and wished
to be heard. There being no response, he declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -530: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -530 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1341, subject to the recommen-
dations of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1341.
adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -530 duly passed and
PUBLIC HEARING ABANDONMENT NO. 72 -5A: Submitted by William P. Visser, to abandon
a portion of an existing alley running north and parallel to Lincoln Avenue,
west of Resh Street in accordance with Condition No. 2 of City Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC72 -147, granting Variance No. 2376.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 17: Mr. Roberts reported the City Planning
Commission reviewed Environmental Impact Report No. 17 at their meeting held
yesterday and were of the opinion that the proposed abandonment would have no
significant effect on the environment and recommended the Council need not adopt
an Environmental Impact Statement because of its triviality and that this also
was the finding of the Environmental Impact Review Committee.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, it was
determined by the City Council that said project would be trivial in nature and
that no Environmental Impact Report would be required. MOTION CARRIED.
City Engineer's report was submitted recommending should the subject
alley be abandoned, there be a reservation of public utility easements and an
easement for sanitary sewer purposes to accommodate existing facilities. In
addition, the Applicant dedicate an additional five -foot public utility easement
and install vertical pipe type bumpers to protect existing electrical facilities
at no cost to the City of Anaheim.
Also submitted was the following:
(a.) Letter of opposition filed by Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Rees, 123 North
Resh Street.
(b.) Petition in opposition containing 13 signatures of residents in
the immediate area.
(c.) Correspondence from Earl V. Nellesen,° expressing concern for
sufficient area to maneuver trash trucks and requesting the alley portion to be
abandoned be restricted to parking only and remain open for power, sewer and
water facilities.
72 -746
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
(d.) Correspondence from Warren W. Jaycox, 'supporting said request,
foreseeing no difficulties in maneuvering trash trucks with the widening of
the northsouth alley from 14 feet to 17 feet.
(e.) Correspondence from C. V. Taromina, Anaheim Disposal Inc., ad-
vising of no difficulities in trash collection should the easterly section of
said alley be abandoned.
Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant 1rished to address the
Mr. Visser, Applicant, Owner and Operator of Visser Florist Shop, 701
West Lincoln Avenue, addressed the Council advising the request was made for the
purpose of constructing a greenhouse to provide storage for live plants which
constitute approximately 25% of his business. He explained he purchased the lot
north of the store site to locate the greenhouse which was opposed by the neigh-
bors in the area. As a result it was suggested the greenhouse be located next to
the existing store and the alley abandoned and with the lot to the north, be used
for the required parking.
Mr. Visser further reported that only his trucks and the trash trucks
presently use this portion of the alley; that no driveway nor garage face onto
said alley. He thereupon referred to the two letters filed by the trash collec-
tion companies favoring said abandonment. He stated the abandonment will afford
approximately 50% more parking thereby alleviating present on- street parking.
Plans were reviewed by the City Council and explained by Mr. Visser.
He advised the drive would be moved approximately 20 feet northerly and the area
would remain completely open for public use after 9 :00 a.m. during daytime and
closed by a chain across the driveways at night.
Mrs. Robert Rees, 123 North Resh Street, referred to petitions in
opposition filed. She reported they have never been officially advised that their
trash could be picked up from the alley. Further she called attention to the
difficulty in maneuvering a right hand turn in a pickup and camper from the alley
to Citron Street because of an existing telephone pole and large blocks of broken
concrete on the Visser property line.
Plans were shown to Mrs. Rees and Councilman Thom assured her the devel-
opment would have to be in accordance with the plans filed.
Mrs. Rees requested the Council seriously consider in good conscience
giving a dedicated alley to one person for his own personal enterprise. She added
they realized their homes were not new but they were their homes in what they
lived in and liked. She stated they did not want to hurt another man in pursuit
of his livelihood nor did they want him to hurt 15 other families and that none
of these plans had previously been explained to her.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address the
Council either for or against said proposal; there being no response, declared
the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -531: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -531 for
adoption, approving Abandonment No. 72 -5A, subject to the conditions recommended
by the City Engineer and further subject to the filing of plans and development
in accordance with said plans, reviewed at this hearing.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERIVF THE VACATION
AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND RESERVING THERE-
FROM CERTAIN EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (72 -5A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
.City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -531 duly passed and
adopted.
PUBkIC BRING ABANDONMENT NO. 72 -6A: Application by Frederick Z. Reitler, re-
questing abandonment of a portion of a former Anaheim Union Water Company right
of way lying south of La Palma Avenue, east of Kraemer Boulevard, was submitted
together with Environmental Impact Report prepared by City staff and City
Engineer's report and recommendation that said abandonment be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The removal of any existing drainage pipes and /or concrete drain-
age channel relating to said right of way shall be done at no cost to the City
of Anaheim.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by
Councilman Stephenson, the Environmental Impact Report was accepted as the
statement of the City Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council in
favor or in opposition to said abandonment; there being no response, declared
the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R 532: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -532 for
adoption, approving Abandonment No. 72 -6A, subject to the condition recommended
by the City Engineer.
adopted.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE
VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY HEREIN
DESCRIBED. (72 -6A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
72 -747
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -532 duly passed and
PUBIC HEARING HOUSEMOVING PERMIT: Application filed by Mt. J. D. Malone, to move
a 2,734 square foot single- family residential structure with an attached garage,
from 9066 Duarte Road, Temple City, California, to 4500 East Cerro Vista Drive,
Anaheim, was submitted,together with report from Development Services Department
recommending said move -on be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Cerro Vista Drive, and Cerro Vista
Way, for street lighting purposes prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in -lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
Mr. Roberts noted the property on which the structure would be placed
was in the Peralta Hills area and in describing the house to be moved, reported
the Building Division has checked the structure and finds it comparable with
other structures in the area. Photographs of said house were submitted and re-
viewed by the City Council.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if the Applicant wished to address the Council.
Mr. Jim Malone addressed the Council advising he will bring the build-
ing to code and that the home, when finished, will be ,equal to anything in the
area. He reported he was a contractor and had experience in this field.
Although he had not yet commissioned an architect to draw schematics
72 -748
City H#11, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
of the finished product, Mr. Malone stated the plans were shown to the Peralta
Hill Homeowner group last evening and as far as he knew, there were no objections
Councilman Stephenson advised of a report he received (not on file)
that the building appeared to have been in a fire as it had warped shutters,
buckling of floors, termites and pre modern wiring.
Mr. Malone replied that all wiring must be replaced which is a require-
ment in nearly every case where a building is moved in and the building must be
brought up to code. He stated that the building was not in a fire; that the
shutters fell apart because they were dry and not painted for some time because
of the dense shrubbery around the house, and were shaken in the moving.
In answer to Councilman Stephenson's question, Mr. Malone advised he
doubted if he would put the shutters on as his plans are to treat a great deal
of the house with stone work.
As to completion, Mr. Malone estimated the move and renovation would
be totally completed in approximately six months, however, they wished to move
in as soon as possible and hoped to obtain final building approval within 90 days,
circumstances and weather permitting. He further stated that if the permit is
granted, plans have been made and crews would be on the job this Friday, Saturday
and Sunday, plumbing, wiring and starting the foundation and that he had adequate
financing to complete the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Council
in opposition.
Mr. Rowland Krueger, 561 Peralta.Hills Drive, speaking on behalf of the
neighbors surrounding subject property and substituting for Mr. Hyatt, President
of Peralta Hills Improvement Association, addressed the Council in opposition
submitting a protest petition purportedly containing 38 signatures of residents
in the general area, and referring to a letter of opposition filed by Mr. Herman,
owner of property adjacent to subject property.
Mr. Krueger reported that people in the area felt there was sufficient
question regarding the ability to achieve computability with other homes in the
area to oppose this request as they could foresee some problems.
He recognized the rights of a property owner to develop his property
but also recognized the rights of the existing residents in the area and the fact
that they in the Peralta Hills area have endeavored to take reasonable positions on
the issues at hand and still maintain the integrity of the area; and of the five
proposed or consummated moveins into the area only one was opposed by their
organization.
Mr. Krueger advised of their growing and greater concern of attempts to
make the Peralta Hills area a graveyard for old and discarded homes.
He stated that it has been said because of the existing change of events,
that the decision to permit the movein has already been reached and any opposition
would be futile as Mr. Malone was granted a permit to move this structure to the
site prior to this hearing.
He noted staff recommendation is based on bringing the structure up to
code,and stated the residents' interest is greater than just meeting code require
ments;that their concern included the outward face of the. building, the impact it
would have and how it would contribute to the quality of the area itself. He
questioned control on the time schedule of completion even though Mr. Malone's
impression is that of sincerity.
Mr. Krueger questioned the reported age of the house being approximately
15 years old and advised that this doubt is raised based on the use of knob and
tube wiring, which he thought has been prohibited since World War II, or 30 years.
In addition, the plumbing fixtures are the style used in the late 30's and 40's.
Further they requested a builder to examine the structure and from the construction
he estimated it to have been built in 1935.
72 -749
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Mr. Krueger stated Mr. Malone has been vague about actual plans. He
advises he will live there and it is not for speculation but admits the pur-
chase of the property is contingent on obtaining the moving permit which leaves
them to believe the matter is one of expedience to have a location for this
movein rather than a desire to live there.
He noted the concern of Mr. and Mrs. Herman and Mr. and Mrs. Elliott
adjoining property owners to the south and east. Further a buyer of adjoining
property has advised that they will not complete the transaction if the movein
is permitted.
Mr. Krueger felt if time proves the movein was a mistake, the entire
area suffers,and if the permit is denied only Mr. Malone would stand to lose.
It was their understanding that Mr. Malone could recover the cost of the house,
however they were not sure he could recover the cost of moving, which they felt
should not have been done in the first place. It was their opinion and in view
of the questions raised, that the City Council should not gamble with the rights
of the property owners already in the area, and that the request should be
denied. However, if the permit is not denied, they request the matter be con
tinued to a later date and the Applicant be required to submit detailed plans
of the proposed remodeling and a firm commitment as to a completion date.
Mr. John Dawson, Assistant City Attorney, explained the provisions of
the code and the findings required to be made by the Council in granting the
permit, one being that less than a majority of property owners in the area
object to the movein and before that can be determined, staff or the City Clerk
must determine the area and the proportionate objections.
Mr. Krueger advised that the petitions in opposition did not repre-
sent a majority and if they had known of this provision a majority could have
been easily obtained.
Mr. Tam Bernatz, 665 Peralta Hills Drive, addressed the Council in
support of statements made by Mr. Krueger and briefly advised that other factors
to be considered are the architectural impact and the economic and financial
impact on the surrounding neighbors.
He agreed that on inspection the house appeared to be built in 1935.
Mr. Bernatz briefly reviewed the history of annexation of this area
to the City of Anaheim and the assurance given that the integrity and appear-
ance of the area would be maintained.
In conclusion Mr. Bernatz advised of his concern that additional move
ins will appear on the vacant 20 acres across the road facing his home, he
thereupon requested the permit be denied.
Mrs. Harriet Herman,150 Cerro Vista Way, advised of their search for
their present property and difficulity in selling their former home due to a
older home adjacent to it. She advised that the present home site was selected
primarily because of the vacant land around it and that something comparable to
their home would be built. She felt the Malone's would be delightful neighbors
in another house and stated her opposition was based solely on a business level
as her life savings were in her home which was built only six months ago.
Judith Miller, 2328 West Broadway, reported she and her family are the
ones who have a deposit on the Upshaw property with escrow scheduled to commence
three weeks ago which has been stopped pending Council decision on this issue.
Mrs. Herman further reported that the two closest property owners
live out of state, however, she was certain they would also be concerned.
Mr. Homer Wallace, Chief Building Inspector, in answer to Council
questioning, reported the house was built with grip -lath and plaster an indica-
tion it was built after World War II and could be as ld as 20 or 25 years
maximum although he had estimated the age to be 15 years.
As to moving the house on the property prior to hearing, Mr. Wallace
72 -750
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
reported a letter on file that the move was at the Applicants' own risk and a
moving permit only was issued as they had to get the house off the property. He
advised the Applicant that the house could not be set down.
Mr. Malone in rebuttal again advised he was building the house for his
own use and not for speculation and requested the hearing be continued to allow
him time to obtain architectural drawings of how the house will be finished. He
stated he did not want to depreciate anyone's property value and asked that the
residents review the drawings of what he proposes to do which he will provide,
before making a decision. He stated he also has his life savings in the house
and it cannot be turned back.
As to the exact age of the house, Mr. Malone did not know, but advised
that a new house could be built that would not compare to subject house.
It being determined sufficient evidence had been given, Mayor Pro Tem
Stephenson declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Thom moved to continue Council decision two weeks for sub-
mission of architectural drawings showing what is proposed.
Councilman Stephenson recalled Mr. Krueger and asked if the house was
fixed up, would there still be objections because of its age.
Mr. Krueger stated he would rather the immediate neighbors replied to
the question, however, the people really did not want the house there and if the
Council feels as they feel that it is not a good structure for the area, the vote
should be taken now rather than in two weeks.
adopted.
Councilman Thom thereupon withdrew his former motion.
Mr. Dawson again read the required findings by the Council as set forth
in the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Councilman Thom reported he would have to revert to the original motion
and continue the matter as he was unable to make the required findings based on
age alone. (No second to said motion)
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -533: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -533
for adoption, denying requested housemoving permit on the basis of the statements
of the existing homeowners and on the basis of the age of the structure and that
the size and architectural design was not comparable to existing homes.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING A HOUSE MOVING
PERMIT TO MR. J. D. MALONE, TO MOVE A DWELLING /BUILDING FROM 9066 DUARTE ROAD,
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA, TO 4500 EAST CERRO VISTA DRIVE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -533 duly passed and
TENTATIVE TMOCT NO. 7730, REVISION NO. 2: Request of M. C. Nickle,,Classic Development
Corporation, that final be made on the relocation of access point
no. 9 to the Santa Ana Canyon Road, pursuant to a condition of approval of said
tract was continued from the meetings of October 10 and 24, 1972, at the request
of the City Engineer to allow for a meeting with the County of Orange.
In the original reports and recommendations both from the City Engineer
and Development Services Department, prior to any action by de City Council, a
public hearing was recommended to be scheduled.
72 -751
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972 1 :30 P.M.
Mr. Maddox advised as result of the ineetings with the Orange County
Road Department Representatives that with the development of the area at higher
densities then originally projected, and the logical possibility of continued
development at the same densities, it appears that Fairmont Boulevard may have
to be extended southerly across the Santa Ana River to Santa Ana Canyon Road
and that several existing highways in the area will probably need to be up-
graded to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes. He advised that one
logical location for Fairmont Boulevard would be in the vicinity of access
point no. 9. Therefore, it would seem premature to consider its relocation
prior to final determination as to the need for Fairmont Boulevard, which per-
haps will require an additional four to six months time for additional studies
and determination of the precise alignment.
Mr. Maddox thereupon recommended that the relocation of access point
no. 9 be determined at a future public hearing to be set subsequent to com-
pletion of current studies being made by the City and County Road Department
regarding future arterial highway needs in this area.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
matter was taken off agenda to be rescheduled as soon as necessary information
is received. MOTION CARRIED.
SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD: Request of Mrs. Jacqueline S. Dudek, PTA Health and Safety
Chairman, concerning alleviating hazardous traffic conditions for the students
of the Juliette Low School was continued from the meeting of October 31, 1972,
for further study by the Traffic Engineer including City costs for providing
traffic crossing guards as compared to school costs to provide bussing students
to school. This investigation was requested to determine the lower cost to the
general taxpayer.
Councilman Stephenson referred to the warrants in policy not to place
crossing guards at signalized intersections and the present precedent now es-
tablished by the placement of a crossing guard at the signalized intersection
of Crescent and Euclid Streets has caused additional request for guards where
none were warranted. He noted that these school children have able to safely
cross Crescent and Euclid Streets for approximately four years prior to the
placing of a guard at this location.
Mrs. Dudek advised that the issue was not crossing guards versus
buses, it was an issue of safety and in her opinion a five or six year old
cannot safely cross a six lane busy highway and that something must be done for
the kindergarten, first and second graders.
Mrs. Dudek further advised that one of the differences between the
two intersections is the location of the high school in close proximity with
200 or 300 students driving to school who are not yet experienced drivers.
Mrs. Hoffman addressed the Council requesting a crossing guard also
be placed at the intersection of Lincoln and Dale Avenues for the protection of
students at the Dr. Albert Schweitzer School.
The Traffic Engineer's report was reviewed estimating cost of pro-
viding crossing guards to be $7,800.00 for the first year and $3,400.00 annually
thereafter. Cost for bussing was estimated to be $4,000.00 annually plus the
cost of the operation of the bus. The School District uses the estimate of
$60.00 per student per year to transport a student.
The City Engineer recommended the request for assignment of school
crossing guard at various intersections in the vicinity of the Juliette Low
School be denied and every effort be extended to work out a cooperative program
with the school district to provide bussing for the kindergarten through second
grade students from south of Lincoln Avenue.
In the event that an equitable solution to provide bussing cannot be
reached and it is determined that crossing guards suld be assigned,it was
recommended that the guard location be at the interaction of Gilbert Street
and Lincoln Avenue.
T
72 -752
City H*11Oi.heim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Mr. Shimeall, Magnolia School District Member, reported that the Juliette
Low School was not the only concern, that there were nine schools in their dis-
trict and these children are all in danger. He stated that according to the
traffic figures of the County of Orange, the busiest street in the County is
Lincoln Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst Street with an average daily
rate being nearly 33,000 cars on Lincoln Avenue.
In answer to question of Councilman Stephenson, Mr. Ed Granzow, Traffic
Engineer, reported that according to the traffic count within the City of Anaheim,
Lincoln Avenue carries approximately 27,000 cars and is the fourth busiest street
in the City, Euclid Street carrying approximately 38,000 is the third busiest
street in the City, Harbor Boulevard is the second and Beach Boulevard the first.
Mr. Shimeall stated that the transportation program and bussing to the
Juliette Low School was reinstated for two months only to allow the City to act
on this request of the parents in this district.
Mr. John Allison, Principal of the Juliette Low School addressed the
Council in support of the requested school crossing guard and advised of the
many assembly programs and safety sessions he had conducted at the school to
teach the children how to go to and from school, however, in spite of these
instructions,there have been many offenders in the school office for breaching a
safety rule and only yesterday three such first grade offenders were in the office
for jay walking across Lincoln Avenue.
Councilman Sneegas stated the real problem is that the City is faced
with apparently eight or nine more such requests,and the question is,does the
City have the $45,000.00 needed to provide this service. Again the question is
how many crossing guards can the City provide and where will the money come from.
Councilman Thom stated he did not know how many schools have this same
problem but in his opinion, one of the services normally provided by a City is
basic safety and he favored the necessary expenditure and would consider each
request separately when presented.
Councilman Thom thereupon moved that the City provide a crossing guard
at the intersections of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue and Lincoln and Dale
Avenues. (No second)
Question was raised by Councilman Sneegas as to whether the children
from the Basin Street apartments would cross at Gilbert Street.
Mrs. Dudek felt certain if there was a crossing guard at Gilbert Street
the children would walk to that location to cross.
Councilman Sneegas wondered if placing a crossing guard would solve the
problem and recalled while on the police force,a crossing guard was struck in the
crosswalk. He questioned whether approval of this request would be opening the
door for a major expenditure without having sufficient research on the issue. He
felt a complete survey should be made as to how many schools and intersections
would require a crossing guard.
Mr. Davis reported a precedent had been established with the reversal
of the Council's longstanding policy of not providing crossing guards at signalized
intersections when a guard was placed at the intersection of Crescent and Euclid
Streets. As a result,and in view of continuing requests, suggested these stand-
ards be reevaluated and perhaps warrants be established whereby guards would be
placed at certain signalized intersections and that a draft of a modified policy
be brought back for Council's further consideration. With dug warrants estab-
lished, the areas that may be involved could be reanalyzed and perhaps included
in a recommendation setting up a new policy, the numbers of intersections in-
volved, and the cost to provide such service.
Councilman Sneegas advised that according to his recollection, the only
accidents involving children were not at signal controlled intersections, they
were in midblock and in places Where the child should not have been alone; they
were the ones most tragic and pathetic and the ones you could not seem to prevent
had you been standing there.
72 -753
City -Mall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Councilman Sneegas thereupon moved that the Traffic Engineer be
directed to survey the total schools and intersections the City would be con-
fronted with to determine how many would fall in the category warranting ad-
ditional protection including the projected costs so that a decision can be
made on the policy and the entire issue. Councilman Stephenson seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Shimeall advised that with the delaying action on this matter,
the school board is also faced with planning that must be done and their two
months bus extension expires December 1, 1972. He requested a positive action
from the City Council as soon as possible.
the study.
It was estimated a minimum of three weeks would be required to make
SOLICITATION OF FUNDS AMERICAN INDIAN INSTITUTE: Application to solicit funds
from people going to and from banks within the City of Anaheim,to be used at
the Christian Boarding School in Parks, Arizona by the American Indian Insti-
tute,was submitted by Mrs. Ruth A. Wheeler, executive director of said insti-
tute.
Mrs. Wheeler reported that raising funds for the American Indian is
a national problem and not necessarily a local problem and that they have had
an Anaheim permit for several years. She further advised that they had been
told that if the request went to the City Council, it could be granted for a
period of one year instead of two months.
It was noted that in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, a
solicitor's permit is valid for only 60 days.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
solicitors permit to the American Indian Institute was granted for a period
of 60 days in accordance with provisions of Chapter 7.32 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 36: E.I.R. and Committee analysis was submitted
pertaining to a 56 -unit adult apartment complex on 1.9 acres located on the
north side of Placentia Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of State College
Boulevard and 500 feet south of the Riverside Freeway. R -3 Reclassification
Nos. 70 -71 -12 and 70- 71 -35.
E.I.R. No. 36 and analysis thereof, were accepted as the Council's
statement on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom.
MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 39: E.I.R. and Committee analysis pertaining to
approximately 22 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch
Road and Royal Oak Road, currently zoned R -H- 10,000 under Reclassification No.
67 -68 -7 (5) (Variance No. 2161) and subdivided into 51 -lots pursuant to Tract
No. 5674 was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, E.I.R.
No. 39 and Committee analysis thereof, were accepted as the Council's statement.
MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 44: E.I.R. No. 44 and Committee analysis pertaining
to a building permit issued to establish a drive through milk store on property
located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue approximately 288 feet west of
Magnolia Avenue,was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, E.I.R.
No. 44 and analysis thereof, were accepted as the Council's statement. MOTION
CARRIED.
EXEMPTIONS FROM FILING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Mr., Thompson presented a
suggested procedure and criteria for exemptions from filing an Environmental
Impact Report together with recommended application form and questionnaire.
72 -754
City Hall, Anaheim, California ,COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972 1 :30 P.M.
Mr. Thompson reported that the recommended procedure and forms have
be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and it is felt the suggested pro-
cedure, criteria and questionnaire if adopted by the City Council will alleviate
the necessity of approximately 909, of the Environmental Impact Reports now
required.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council approved and adopted the suggested procedure and criteria for exemption
from filing of an Environmental Impact Report together with the form for filing
and exemption and questionnaire thereto. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -534: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -534 for adoption.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Family Place One, Ltd.; Eugene E.
La Meres; Bernardo M. Yorba)
adopted.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -534 duly passed and
RESOLUTION NO. 72R 535: On the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman
Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -535 for adoption, accepting easement deed for
the ultimate right of way at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball
Road in exchange for relocating on -site facilities (Miller and Shell Oil Company
$33,734.00).
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT
DEED AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREFOR. (Ball Road and Brookhurst Street)
adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -535 duly passed and
CANCELLATION OF COUNTY TAXES: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by
Councilman Sneegas, the Orange County Board of Supervisors were requested to can-
cel County taxes on property acquired by the City of Anaheim for public purposes
from the Merchants National Realty Corporation, pursuant to Resolution No. 72R -473,
as recorded October 24, 1972, in the office of the Orange County Recorder in Book
10389, Page 347, Document No. 23732. (Bank of America Building) MOTION CARRIED.
SALE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY: Mr. Davis presented and explained proposal received from
Gross and Company for the purchase of surplus City owned property located in the
area of Katella Avenue and Katella Way for the amount of $10,000.00. He reported
the City acquired title to the property when relinquished by tile State on the com-
pletion of the Katella overcrossing of the freeway (shown on Ah area map in orange).
Mr. Davis further advised that in conjunction with the sale, an easement would be
granted to encroach on the northerly portion of the property (shown on an area map
in green) on which the property owner will install a sprinkler system and maintain
landscaping. Ingress and egress onto the property would be by right turn only.
RESOLUTION NO 72R -536: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -536 for
adoption, authorizing sale of property as recommended, subject to the following
conditions:
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
1. That all vehicular access rights be reserved along the west
property line from the southerly terminus of the proposed driveway to Katella
Way as indicated on the sketch on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
2. That a easement be reserved to cover existing drainage facilities
and that new easements be dedicated as required by the City Engineer to cover
proposed additional and /or revision of said drainage facilities.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS CITY REAL PROPERTY TO FREEWAY COMMERCIAL PROPER-
TIES, INC. (Between Katella Way and Katella Avenue, West of Manchester)
adopted.
adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -536 duly passed and
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 72 -3A RESOLUTION NO. 72R -537: Councilman Stephenson
offered Resolution No. 72R -537 for adoption, authorizing encroachment permit
as recommended subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Applicant post a bond in the amount and form satisfactory
to the City of Anaheim to guarantee the installation of said landscaping,
sprinkler system, retaining wall if necessary, drainage swale and any proposed
additions to and /or revision of existing drainage facilities.
2. That the Applicant coordinate the plans of proposed landscaping
with the City of Anaheim Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and submit a
copy of said plans to the Division of Highways for review and approval.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING AN
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO GROSS AND COMPANY, INC., ALONG KATELLA OVER-
PASS EMBANKMENT SLOPE FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
72 -755
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -537 duly passed and
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: Purchase of Microfilm Reader Printer from 3M Business Prod-
ucts Sales, Inc., in the total amount of $2,534.59, including tax, was auth-
orized as recommended by Mr. Davis, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded
by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim filed by Chuck Oberstein on behalf of Kirk Oberstein,
a minor, for purported personel injuries sustained on or about August 2, 1972,
was submitted, denied and ordered referred to the insurance carrier as recom-
mended by the City Attorney on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by
Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -538: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -538 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF
THE INCREASE IN POPULATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (November 1, 1972)
1
72 -756
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R 539: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -539 for
adoption.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESS-
MENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING ASSESS-
MENT DISTRICT 1972 -1 FOR THE FIRST CONTRACT YEAR, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED
TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR THE ENSUING
CONTRACT YEAR. (Tract No. 1959) ($8.29 per lot)
adopted.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -538 duly passed and
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -539 duly passed and
CITY INSURANCE FIRE, EARTHQUAKE AND BUSINESS INTERRUPTION: Finance Director Mike
Ringer recommended competitive proposals be obtained for the City's insurance
program.
Mr. Ringer briefed the Council on study made on the five year fire
insurance policy which was written to cover three elements of insurance for the
City;: the fire insurance earthquake insurance and earthquake insurance at the
Stadium and Convention Center and business income protection insurance at the
Stadium and Convention Center. He also reported on the former method of insuring
through five local agencies and at the suggestion of an insurance consultant to
reduce a considerable amount of the premium, the last five year's coverage was
written in one broad policy with one company and the result of that recommenda-
tion has realized a premium savings the last five years of more than $100,000.00.
Mr. Ringer reported that the premium on the policy the last five years
was $416,000.00 and the new policy is estimated to be approximately $532,000.00
or an increase of nearly $100,000.00. The current policy is written on a
$1,000.00 deductible and proposals will be requested on both the $1,000.00 de-
ductible and $50,000.00 deductible as the premium figures would indicate a saving
of approximately $100,000.00 should it be determined that the $50,000.00 deductible
was advisable.
The Stadium and Convention Center earthquake insurance is estimated to
go from $136,000.00 to $172,000.00 and the business interruption policy current
premium is $135,000.00 and the new premium is estimated to be $138,000.00.
He reported that the new policy takes into consideration the increase
in replacement and construction costs 'and a complete study on replacement values
has been made by .Mr. Ted Davidson, an employee and representative of Allendale
Insurance Company, the City's current carrier. As result of t e study, it has
been recommended that the total policy be written for $50,000,000.00 instead of
$40, 000,000.00. Replacement values of structures only have increased. The
Convention Center has increased from $14,600,000.00 to $17,200,000.00 not includ-
ing the new addition and the Stadium from $14,100,00.00 to $17,300,000.00. He
further reported that every City facility that does not have sprinklers has been
analyzed to compare the savings in premiums with the cost of installing the
sprinklers.
In reporting on the specifications prepared for competitive bidding,
Mr. Ringer stated anyone wishing to submit a proposal would be given a complete
City Hall Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
service tour of the facilities in the event they wished to make their own
evaluation and examination, however, quotations are requested on the work
that the City has already done. After the insurance carrier is decided, the
decision can then be made to either increase or decrease our values.
Mr. Murdoch reported that with the increase in the deductible, this
may be a good way to gradually get into as much self insurance as we can within
the realm of safety and reasonable risk. With the loss experience of the City,
and in this particular instance, the premium saving indicated is substan-
tially greater over what our losses have been over several years.
At the conclusion of the discussion, on motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilman Thom, submission of the insurance program for compet-
itive proposals as outlined by the Finance Director was approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
CORRFSP(S+JDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. Correspondence from Arthur C. Latno, Jr., Vice President of The
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company to Mr. D. W. Holmes, Public Utilities
Commission, regarding Application No. 53587 concerning interim and final rate
increases.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3094: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3094 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 -13 (2) R -2 and R -3
Tract No. 7802)
adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3094 duly passed and
72 -757
ORDINANCE NO. 3095: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3095 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67 -68 -7 (5) R -H- 10,000)
ORDINANCE NO. 3096: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3096 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70 -71446 (1) (2) R -A)
PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application for public dance permit filed by Mr. Henry Ameen
on behalf of the Garden Grove Firemen's Association to conduct a dance at the
Convention Center, November 17, 1972 was submitted and recommended by the Chief
of Police in accordance with provision of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, plus six officers to police the dance.
Said permit was granted as recommended by the Chief of Police on
motion by Councilnian Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
AGREEMENT ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT HORACE MANN SCHOOL EXTENSION OF
TIME: On the recommendation of the City Manager, request to the Anaheim Elementary
School District for extension of time from November 30, 1972 to April 1, 1973,
to complete the first list of items as set forth in said agreement was author-
ized on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION
CARRIED.
72 -758
City Hall, /Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
LEASE- PURCHAFE GOLF CARTS ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: Mr. Murdoch reported on
lease- purchase of 22 additional golf carts from Taylor -Dunn Manufacturing
Company at a total price of $24,887.50, including tax.
Mr. Murdoch explained that each weekend it has been necessary to bring
in 20 additional carts from Taylor -Dunn to add to the 40 the City owns, which
are rented for just what Taylor -Dunn charges for them with no gain to the City.
The lease purchase agreement would be at the rate of $55.00 per month
per cart of which $40.00 would accrue towards the purchase price, the balance
due at the end of six months.
Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assistant, reported that taking the
first 12 days of operation, $3,100.00 was collected or $250.00 per day, which
when projected the year around, the revenue would be $94,170.00.
At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion by Councilman Pebley,
seconded by Councilman Stephenson, said lease purchase was authorized as reccom-
mended by the City Manager. To this motion Councilman Thom voted "no MOTION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -540: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -540 for
adoption, encouraging the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to apply
for Federal grant for the development of the Prado Regional Park as recommended
by John Collier, Director of Parks and Recreation.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT
OF PRADO REGIONAL PARK AS REQUESTED BY SAN BERNARDINO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
adopted.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -540 duly passed and
CHINO HILLS #IRPORT PRESENTATION: It was determined by the City Council that this
meeting be adjourned to 10 :00 a.m., Tuesday, November 21, 1972, for the presen-
tation of the Chino Hills Airport Project.
PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD: Re-
quest o Orange County Street Naming Committee to consider change of name of
State College Boulevard to University Boulevard due to the redesignation of the
college to a state university and suggesting the City of Anaheim hold public
hearing on the proposed change was submitted.
The majority of the City Council,remembering the name of the street
was changed from Placentia Avenue to State College Boulevard approximately ten
years ago,were opposed to any further change of the name on the basis of the
expense property owners and businesses would incur by such a change, and there-
upon declined scheduling public hearing on the issue. The City Clerk was dir-
ected to so advise the Orange County Street Naming Committee.
Councilman Thom requested the record to show that he did not oppose the
holding of a public hearing on this issue.
SANTA A 11 CA YON STUDY COMMITTEE PROGRESS REPORT: At the request of Mr. Murdoch,
action an the acceptance of the progress report from the Santa Ana Canyon Study
Committee was deferred one week to allow for meeting with Mr. Bill Young, Anaheim's
representative,to further review said study.
RESOIITWNIit 7? -541 MOHLER DRIVE ANNEXATION: Councilman Thom dffered Resolution
No. 72R for adoption, receiving petition requesting annexation of inhabited
territory to the City of Anaheim and scheduling a public hearing to be held
December 5, 1972, at 1 :30 P.M.
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY. (MOHLER DRIVE ANNEXATION)
Signed
adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -541 duly passed and
ADJOUR1 ENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn to Tuesday, November 21, 1972,
10:00 a.m., Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5 :15 P.M.
City Clerk
Z gel e g4.44 4
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 10 :00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned
session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
CHINO HILLS AIRPORT COMPLEX PROPOSAL: Mayor Dutton introduced representatives
of Chino Hills Airport Complex Inc., to present the Chino Hills Airport
proposal. The Mayor pointed out that the proposal deserves very careful
consideration due to the fact that tourism is the third largest industry
in Orange County, and is tremendously air oriented; 22% of Disneyland's
visitors arrive by air.
Mr. John Lowman, President of Chino Hills Airport Complex Inc.,
explained that the group is a non profit corporation, chartered under the
State of California for the purposes of developing and operating a public
service airport. The group has conducted feasibility studies and other
research specific to the development of an airport facility to serve this
area.
His presentation regarding the Chino Hills Airport Complex proposal
was based on the following seven major elements:
1. The necessity for another airport to handle both passengers and
freight in this area.
2. The advantages of the Chino Hills site.
3. The ground access situation.
4. The possibilities for efficient use by aircraft.
5. The environmental impact.
72 -759
72 -760
City Nall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972 10 :00 A.M.
6. The profitable operation of the airport.
7. The development program set up by the Chino Hills Airport Complex.
Throughout his presentation, Mr. Lowman utilized a series of slide
projections to illustrate the topography of the site and the charted results of
the various research projects.
The proposed airport would provide a jet passenger and air cargo
terminal plus business aircraft and general aviation facilities by early 1980.
The need for this additional terminal is apparent, based on studies by W. M.
Pereira and Associates, and Clifton Moore, Director of Airports, City and County
of Los Angeles, which reveal passenger growth projections in the Los Angeles
basin in the 1980's will require annual air capabilities of 227 million and 250
million passengers. The annual present and planned capabilities at Los Angeles,
Palmdale and Onterio total 152 million. Thus there is still a deficit of 75 to
98 million projected air passengers annually. In addition, Mr. Lowman stated
that the volume of goods shipped by airfreight is expected to continue to grow
and is estimated, according to a study by the California Civil Aeronautics Board,
to increase 20 to 22% per year into the 1980's. The larger cargo airplanes being
developed will play an important role in this increase by bringing the costs of
shipping airfreight down to 2 and one -half cent per ton per mile which will in
turn create the need for additional airport facilities.
Mr. Lowman indicated on an area map the site which is proposed for the
airport, being west of the Prado Dam, southeast of Carbon Canyon and north of
the Riverside Freeway, which site would be partially in Orange and partially
in San Bernardino Counties. He pointed out that the proposed site would be well
within reasonable travel distance from the major population centers in Orange,
San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. An aerial photograph was used to show
the proposed site of 25,000 acres of uninhabited land.
Geological information obtained from studies initiated by the oil and
gas companies under the Coast Geodetic Survey indicates that the closest faults
to the airport site would be the Whittier and Chino faults, both of which are
six to ten miles away. The soil itself, according to this same information, is
of a composition that could be easily moved. The deepest cut and fill in the
airport plan would be 350 to 360 foot. The plan calls for two runways, 150
foot by 12,000 foot in length, which would require a total leveling project of
two miles. The plan also calls for leveling of only two ridges, and filling
in with this soil the head of one canyon, so that no unusual drainage problem
is anticipated. The remaining topography will be left intact as a noise buffer'
zone.
To illustrate the necessity of building airports in uninhabited areas,
Mr. Lowman presented an aerial photograph taken of the Navel Air Station at Los
Alamitos in 1960, and a photograph of the same area taken nine years later,
showing residential development to a point where it is not possible to operate
jet aircraft out of this airport.
Mr. Lowman briefed the Council on present and further ground access to
the proposed site, stating that there are two existing east -west freeways, Pomona
and Riverside, and two existing north -south freeways, Orange and Corona; under
construction on the east -west route is the Century Freeway and in the planning
phase on the north -south route is the Devore Freeway. Unlike other airports such
as Los Angeles International, it will be possible to drive into the terminal area
from any point through a system of frontage roads surrounding the freeways at
this site. Average driving time to the proposed site from population centers is
approximately 20 to 35 minutes, he reported.
Mr. Lowman stated that there are three major points which must be proved
to the public during the planning phase of a project such as this, and these are:
1. That it is possible to build the airport on the site selected on a
cost effective basis.
2. That it is possible to operate commercial aircraft in and out safely.
3. That the project would not have any adverse impact on the environ-
ment.
1