1977/02/0877-13!
~itv Hall~ Anshelm~ California - COUNCIL MINL~ES - February 8 1977 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Anntka Santalahti
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance
to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend William Peebles of the First Presbyterian Church gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Minutes of
the Anaheim City Council regular meetings held December 7 and 14, 1976, and the adjourned
regular meeting of January 4, 1977 were approved, subject to typographical corrections
MOTION CARRIED. '
WAIk~R OF REAI~.ING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive
the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver
of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or
resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEM. kNDS AGAINST THE CITY: Financial demands against the City in the amount
of $4,126,172.14, in accordance with the 1976-77 Budget, were approved.
_l~3: FEASIBLLITY STUDY AG.REEMENT, HILL AND CANYON BRANCH LIBRARY: Councilman Kott
offered Resolution No. 77R-73 for adoption, in accordance with the recommendation
of the Assistant Library Director in her memorandum dated February 1, 1977. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY AGREEMENT WITH GUNN, LAN-DA,
ROSE, ~ AND ASSOCIATES FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH HILL AND CANYON BRANCH
LIBRARY, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY cLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREE-
MZlqT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Roth
ABSENT: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-73 duly passed and adopted.
77-132
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL PIINUTES - February 8 !977 1.:~0 P.M.
123 - 02TION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSEg: City Manager Talley referred
to memorandum dated January 27, 1977 from James Ruth, Director, Parks, Recreation and
the Arts Department, as well as memorandum dated January 7, 1977 from the City Enginee
James Maddox, recommending that the City exercise its option to purchase 2.91 acres of
real property located at La Palma Avenue and Falmouth Street from the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints for park purposes for a total sum of $186,240.
In answer to. Councilman Seymour, Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry, after recapping
costs of previous parcels purchased under the City's contractual agreement with the
corporation of the President of the LDS Church at the same site, indicated that the
figures, in reality, reflected 1964 dollars.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City authorized
the exercise of its option to purchase 2.91 acres, Parcel Two of John Marshall Park,
!ocated at La Palma Avenue and Falmouth Street, for a total of $186,240 prior to
February 17, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
150: CITROn.PAR.l: On motion by Councilman Kot;, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the park on Citron Street near Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard was named Citron Park,
as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and as outlined in a report dated
February 1, 1977 from the Director of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department.
MOTION CARRIED.
150: MODJESKA PARK COMMIINITY BUILDING: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by
Councilman Seymour~ consideration of preliminary design plans, preliminary specifica-
tions and preliminary estimates of probable construction costs for the Modjeska Park
Community Building was continued to the evening session of this meeting scheduled for
7:30 P.M. at the Chartres Recreation Center, 222 East Chartres, wherein a public dis-
cussion would be held on the subject community building. MOTION CARRIED.
153: AMENDMENT TO PERS CONTRACT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilwoman Kaywood, amendment to the PERS contract to allow certain miscellaneous
members another opportunity to elect to have the 1959 Survivor Benefit Coverage,
effective May 13, 1977, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated February 1,
1977 from the Personnel Director, Garry McRae. MOTION CARRIED.
153: AMENDMENT OF RULE 6~ STRAIGHT-TIME OVERTIME F..0..R....POLICE PERSONNEL~ S,TADIUM ROCK
CONCERTS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-74 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated February 2, 1977 from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Boo~
RESOLL~ION NO. 77R-74: -A RESOLUTION OF T~IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
~MENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-179 PERTAINING TO RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY, BY ADDING SECTION
6.06.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-74 duly passed and adopted.
77-133
City Hall Anaheim. Ca,ilo.mia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8. 1977, 1;..3Q
123: JOINT~ . POWERS AGREEMENT,., ... . POLICE.. .. MANPOT~R~.. _.. .ALLgCATIONSYSTEMB:. .. . . Councilman Kott
offered Resolution No. 77R-75 for adoption, as reco~ended in memorandum dated
February 1, 1977, from the Chief of Police, Harold Bastrup. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO 77R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANA~IMAND TKE CITIES-OF BREA, GARDEN GROVE AND LA }~BRA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT O~ THE
POLICE MANPOWER ALLOCATION SYSTEMS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEb~NT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL F~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-75 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE, FAIRMONT BOULEVARD,. AHFP N0.837 .' Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 77R-76 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated Ja.nuary 27,
1977, frem the City Engineer, project to be funded entirely through Gas TaX FUnds. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-76: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO
THE ARTERIAL HIGt~WAY FINANCING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976-77.
Roll Call Vote:
AIq~S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CO'JNCIL b~MBERS:
COUNCIL. MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mmyor declared Resolution No. 77R-76 duly passed and adopted.
169: LINCOLN AVEN~E STREET IMPROVEMEN~ W.~O. NOS 777-B AND 872, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, Change Order No. 1 to Work
Order Nos.,77~B and 872, Lincoln Avenue Street Improvement, in the amount, of $4,784, was
approved thereby increasing the original contract amount to $94,803.10. MOTION CARRIED.
158: LEASE OF CITY-OWNED LAND TO UCI FOR COMMUNITY MEDICAL CLINIC: City Manager
Talley reported that during the two-week continuance of the proposed negotiated lease
~th the University of California, Irvine, for a community medical clinic in Anaheim,
numerous communications regarding the matter had been received and copies furnished
to the Council. During the interim, the college and local institutions met further
to discuss what had been proposed. He explained that Dr. Stanley Van Den Noort, Dean
of the College of Medicine, UCI, was in the Chamber, as well as many other interested
persons regarding the subject. Also received was a joint letter dated February 8, 1977
from the West Anaheim Community, St..Jude, Martin Luther, and Anaheim Memorial Hospitals.
77-i~4
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca!}fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - FebruarV 8,. !97~, I:3Q..~..M~'
The ~yor commented that the synopsis of the request contained in the joint letter
was that the proposed establishment of the clinic in Anaheim be referred to the Orang~
County Health Planning Association for"further evaluation.
Councilman Kott stated that just a moment ago, he consulted with the City Attorney who
advised him that he (Kott) would have a potential conflict of interest in the matter.
He, therefore, abstained from any voting relative to the negotiation of a lease of
City-owned property to UCI for a community medical clinic.
Mayor Thom confirmed that the question before the Council was whether or not to
instruct staff to negotiate the subject lease agreement and the two week's continuance
at the request of certain individuals was for the purpose of assimilating additional
information prior to a final decision.
Dr. Stanley Van Den Noort explained that he appeared before, the Council two years
ago and received a ~esolution adopted October 29, 1974, endorsing UCI's plan to
proceed with the development of a community clinic in areas underserved in Orange
County. His basic thrust was to finalize the location along the lines originally
developed with the City of Anaheim to locate the community clinic on the land iden-
tified by the City as being most appropriate for that purpose. He emphasized the
high degree of urgency involved relative to funding of the project, which funding
would lapse if not extended or committed before July 1, 1977. UCI had been proceeding
on the basis that the City of Anaheim was still highly supportive of the project.
Relative to a previous question by Councilwoman Kaywood, Dr. Van Den Noort further
explained that the community clinic of Orange County was presently leased from the
County at a rate of 33¢ a square foot, including maintenance. The land, however,
was at no cost.
Dr. Van Den Noort elaborated on the meeting held two weeks orior, with representatives
of the University staff, West Anaheim Community, Anaheim Memorial and Martin Luther
Hospitals, as well as representatives from the Community Services Board of Anaheim,
Anaheim City Schools and Anaheim Union High School District, which revolved around
~e impact of the proposed facility on the existing health facilities in the City and
adjacent areas.
Dr. Van Den No~rt indicated that the University felt the impact of the clinic would
be negligible while, at the same time, providm service to those currently not
receiving such care or having to travel a distance to the County clinic. He then
briefed the Council on statistics relative to the resultant in~act which, by his
analysis, would require approximately ten hospital beds.
Dr. Van Den Noort also took exception to the joint letter received from the four
hospitals requesting that the matter be referred to an agency that was misnamed.
He stated that the Orange County Health Planning Council and not Association was
the health service agency designated in Orange County and, as well, there was no
University of California, Irvine, Medical School but, instead, a College of Medicine..
He explained that the Orange County Health Planning Council delivered an excellent
plan adopted and endorsed by the State of California and the Federal Government,
which plan emphasized the need for extensive out-patient facilities in Orange County
in geographically dispersed locations. After an explanation of the legislation to
77-135
C$ty ~all., Anaheim,. Ca%ifornia - cOUNCIL MINUTES ~ Febru_ary 8, 1917,...!:JQ~p.M.
which reference was 'made in the letter, Dr. Van Den Noort pointed out that neither
the Health Planning Council nor the State had the authority to regulate locations
of clinics of the type being proposed, but could only advise. He stressed that the
present plan was consistent with that developed two years prior.
Dr. Van Den Noort stateJ that the absence of authorization from the Council to proceed
in the immediate future would jeopardize supporting elements~in Governor's Budget
which included operational support to the extent of $200,000.00 to $300,000.00 for the
next fiscal year and reiterated the urgency of final Council consideration.
The Mayor acknowleged many people in the Council Chamber who were interested in the
clinic and confirmed that the City was considering authorizing staff to' negotiate a
lease on City-owned land behind Glover Stadium (La Palma Park) on property presently
used as a parking lot during athletic events. A portion of that land was proposed
to be leased to the University of Irvine for the development of a Community Medical
Clinic to be used bo~h as a teaching and treatment facility. He then invited a repre-
sentative of those in the Chamber in favor of the proposed clinic to speak on the
matter if they wished to do so.
Miss Virginia Perez, 1221 Brookhaven, Community Liason for the Anaheim Union High
School District (AUHSD), stated that she, as well as many school aides, had extensive
experience in dealing with the human needs of Anaheim. They could no longer do nothing
and considered it their responsibility to inform the Council of the human suffering
that did not appear in statistics, Which, if known, would have eliminated the need
for them to be present today for they would have had their clinic.
Miss Perez then presented the following people who, in turn, presented a cross section
of members of the community who were in dire need of medical care but not attainable
because of inadequate or non-existent financial means, as well as lack of transportation,
or the impossibility of being able to withstand a bus ride to the present County medical
facility:
Mary Lou Jacobs, school nurse in the Anaheim City School District; Margarita Maes,
4521 Maroon Drive, La Palma, school community liason at Fremont Junior High School
and Anaheim High School; Mr. Enrico Sandoval, spokesman for senior citizens of the
community; Lois Saelaya, community aide from Anaheim City Schools. They emphatically
implored the Council's favorable consideration of an Anaheim based clinic as proposed
by UCI for the below listed reasons:
1. A large segment of the population in the inner City area Here in dire need of a
primary care health facility readily accessable within the community providing quality
medical care at a fee that would not keep food off their tables.
2. A very large percentage of children in secondary schools have unmet medical needs.
3. Senior citizens need help badly; many who have had short hospital stays have
utilized all of their resources due to escalation in medical costs and must look to
other avenues for assistance.
4. The meed for a community clinic facility in the immediate area which would address
the health care needs of the medically indigent of the City must be recognized.
5. The proposed location would be ideal; it must have its own identity and autonomy to
resolve the day-to-day decisions made in management.
C__ity Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977~ 1:.30 P.M.
Mary Lou Jacobs submitted two letters in support of the Proposed clinic from a
practicing dentist in the community, Dr. Done, as well as another from the West
Central Liaison Board of the Community Mental Health Region. Lois Selaya also
submitted a number of letters in support of the clinic from parents, interested
doctors, dentists and other citizens of the community.
Mr. Richard Vargas, 411 South Clementine Street, Co-Chairman of the Community Services
Board and designated'spokesman briefed the Council on the meeting held two weeks prior
which he and Co-Chairman Mickey Campbell attended. Upon listening to both Sides of'the
story, and after careful consideration of the impact that the clinic would have on the
City, the Community Services Board strongly recommended that the City Council approve
the facility as proposed by the UCI Medical School.
The Mayor asked if representatives of the medical institutions or professions in
Anaheim wished to speak.
Peter Otis, a physician in Anaheim, explained that he was not going to speak on behalf
of defending the private sector as far as medical care was concerned, although he
stated that the clinic should definitely be established. He indicated his concern was
that of a property owner and taxpayer in the City of Anaheim and the proposed loca-
tion, being on the fringe of an affluent, middle-class society and an indigent society,
was going to hurt the small property owner on the other side of the stree~ as well as .-~
the City of Anaheim if the property valuation decreased. In a short survey that he
made to the west and southwest of the proposed clinic location, it was estimated that
the area represented approximately $20,000~00 a year in property taxes thereby repre-
senting close to two million dollars worth of property in that particular area. The
individuals involved were concerned relative to the social impact of the clinic if
placed fn that area, but not in the services it would provide..
The Mayor explained that the selection of the site was made because the University
considered it to be most appropriate relative to a study made by the local School
District designating that particular area as being socially deprived with a high
incidence of medical indigent welfare. By circumstance, vacant City land was available
in the same area, thereby not only being an appropriate site for the socially disad-
vantaged of Anaheim, but also a convenient site for serving similar areas in sonthern
Fullerton and southern Placentia. The Mayor recognized that any type of building,
whether commercial, industrial or'the like usually had an impact either favorable or
unfavorable on adjoining properties. He also recognized there were some wealthy
families and properties in the near proximity, which properties had been there again
by circumstance for many years.
Mickey Campbell, Co-Chairman of the Community Services Board, stated that some people
were going to be disrupted wherever a~ything was built, but in this instance emphasized
that the City should be persistent in its stand.
Mr. Leonard La Bella, Administrator of Martin ~uther Hospital, clarified the reason
why his hospital met with the Dean at the joint meeting in terms of the clinic. He
pointed to the fact that Orange County was continually criticized for being a health
care area that was~over~bedded and under-utilized and the City Council Should be appris~
77-137
~ity Hall, ~ahei~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- February 8~ .197.7, 1:30 P.M.
of those kinds of feelings before making any endorsement of the proposed project.
He recognized the need for the clinic type service that would be afforded and in-
dicated it was unfortunate not only that the private sector had not been able to
respond to these needs, but also that somehow the facilities with excess capacity
in and around Anaheim could not be brought into accord in a venture to service the
need for all. Their ma{n purpose was to obtain a clarification of the clinic pro-
ject and to suggest the possibility of other alternatives or locations because of
other existing facilities having space available that might be more appropriate.
The Mayor then stated that he was very much in favor of the City l~asing land to
UCI and had. been for many years because it would serve a large segment of the Anaheim
community needing that service, while at the same time serving the medical profession
because it would be a teaching facility as well in the area of family health care.
For the edification of those in the Council Chamber, the Mayor explained that he per-
sonally knew of the great amount of services performed by the existing medical pro-
fession in the community who treated patients, free of charge--children, adult, senior
citizens--because of their inability to pay for such services. He wanted those good
members of the medical and dental profession to be aware that he realized it was not
possible for them to take care of all who had such needs and still provide a living
for themselves. In this case, therefore, government must help another.government
agency by facilitating the necessary service in the Anaheim community.
MOTION: The Mayor thereupon moved that staff be instructed to enter into negotiations
for a lease of City-owned land to the University of California at Irvine for a community
medical clinic at the least possible cost per year, suggesting $1.00 a year. Council-
man Seymour seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour first stated that he endorsed all that
had been~ said relative to the need for service. However, since the majority of the
Council upheld the philosophy of being concerned about the environment, if the pro-
posed clinic created any significant impact on that environment relative to location,
he wanted to know what other alternate sites had been evaluated either from staff or
Dr. Van Den Noort.
Extensive discussion followed between staff, Council and Dr. Van Den Noort revolving
around site selection and possible alternate sites that may have been considered with
many points raised lending support to the fact that the site selected in the vicinity
of La Palma Avenue between Lemon Street and Harbor Boulevard was the most favorable
as emphasized by both Councilwoman Kaywood and Mayor Thom.
Mr. John Harding, Assistant to the City Manager, also explained at the request of
Councilman Seymour, that the redevelopment area was explored as a possible site; how-
ever, since the property presently proposed was not on the tax rolls, it was considered
to be appropriate for a tax exempt organization. Mr. Harding also explained further,
that a significant social impact was already in existence in the area since the Welfare
Office and other such offices had since moved into the old court building, which offides
were directly across from the proposed clinic site.
77-13B
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL.MINUTES - February 8~..1977, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that he did not want to stop the proceedings on the
very badly needed facility but he would not be satisfied until it was concluded
after looking at other alternatives, that the selected site was the most viable
one. He would support the motion provided that a sincere effort was made by staff
to identify alternate sites.
Mayor Thom, although he did not disagree with Councilman Seymour, expressed that if
the search for alternate sites were to slow down negotiations to the extent where
the University lost interest, then the Council would have betrayed the community.
Dr. Van Den Noort indicated that any delay as suggested by Councilman Seymour of approxi-
· mately three weeks would impare his presentation to the Regents in February in asking
them to deal with the endorsement of a lease of an unknown site. He then proceeded to
read a letter dated December 4, 1974, from the City Manager, which pointed specifically
to the proposed City-owned property as being that approved by the City Council with
authorization tO negotiate a formal lease for the use of that land. Dr. Van Den Noort
stated he was astounded that three years later the site had not been finalized.
After additional discussion, Councilman Seymour indicated that he found it inconsistent
that when the private sector proposed development of some type, the Council had estab-
lished a record that totally supported neighbors and neighborhoods. When the public
came before the same body with a development proposal, however, the Council no longer
shared the concerns once shared for the environment.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if Councilman Seymour wanted to withdraw his second
to the motion, she would be happy to second it and further elaborated on the reasons
why she considered the selected site as being the best and most conducive for the
proposed use.
Relative to the foregoing motion, Councilman Seymour withdrew his second; thereupon
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion as made by Councilman Thom, fhat staff be
instructed to enter into negotiations for a lease of City-owned land to the University
of California at Irvine for a community medical clinic at the proposed site for the
least possible cost per year. To this motion, Councilman Seymour voted "No". Council-
man Kott abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
~EC~ESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes.
('3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present
(3:05 P.M.) '
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2874: Application by Bernardo M. and Margaret
Yorba, to construct self-service gasoline pumps and an office building on RS-A-43,000
(SC) zoned property located at the southeast corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway with code waivers of:
(a) maximum building height
(b) permitted uses (withdrawn)
(c) minimum building setback from an exprassway
(d) minimum building setback from an arterial highway
(e) minimum landscaped setback from an arterial highway (denied)
77-139
City Ha].~,..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
(f) minimum landscaped setback from a residential zone
(g) prohibited signing (withdrawn)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-254, recommended
that the subject proper~y be declared exempt from the requirememt to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Enviro~-
mental Quality Act and further, recommended that Variance No. 2874 be granted, in
part, for two office buildings with the recommendation that Council Policy No. 201
be waived, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification Nos.
64-65-4 and 71-72-7, now pending.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Imperial Highway, including preparation of improvement plans and installation
of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities, or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as required by
the City Engineer and in accordance with standard specifications on file in the Office
of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Imperial Highway shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Works and-
in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the
Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit,
or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with
the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on
file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That. appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of Public
Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
5. That the existing integrated tract sign shall be removed.
6. That the proposed development shall comply with all signing requirements of the
Scenic Corridor Zone-Overlay, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
7. That the median cut located in Imperial Highway near the southern boundary of the
subject property shall be modified, and a new median cut, as shown on the submitted
plans and approved by the Traffic Engineer, shall be constructed to align the proposed
driveway on subject property and the existing driveway on the westerly side of Imperial
Highway, the cost of which is to be borne entirely by the petitioner, as stipulated to by
the petitioner.
8. That precise landscaping plans shall be submitted for Planning Commission review
and approval, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
9. That the landscaping in the right-of-way adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road and
Imperial Highway shall be maintained in perpetuity byfthe property owner(s), as
stipulated to by the petitioner; and that a written agreement for said perpetual
maintenance shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval
and then filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
77-]40
~y Hall~ Anahgim, ,California - COUNCIL M~N.UTE$ - February 8~ 1977~ 1:.30 P.r..M.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit
Nos. !, 2 and 3.
11. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8, 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 date hereof,
whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission or City Council
may grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
.to final building and zoning inspections.
13. That no medical offices, medical laboratories or related uses, or any commercial-
retail uses or other commercial uses having parking requirements exceeding the number
of spaces provided for the proposed office buildings, shall be permitted as tenants
of the proposed office structures, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
Public hearing was continued to this date from the January 25, 1977 meeting at the
request of the applicant.
Councilman Seymour stated that since he had a leasehold interest in an office as a
tenant on the opposite corner to the proposed project, the City Attorney advised him
to abstain from all discussion and voting as there could be a potential conflict of
interest.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (3:07 P.M.)
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings-given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City
Planning Commission.
In ans~er to Councilman Roth, Miss Santalahti clarified that 17% of the entire site
was developable in accordance with zoning regulations only, but that in terms of build-
ings, it would be closer to 28% to 30% not including parking lots.
~ne Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of being
heard.
Mr. Thomas L. Woodruff, 1055 North Main Street, Number 1020, Santa Ana, Agent and Attor-
ney for Mr. Ron Allen and Bernardo and Margaret Yorba, indicated that the applicants
were satisfied with the determination of the Planning Commission in granting the
variance in part. He stated that there was some confusion about the driveways and
subsequently additional drawings were prepared from which he pointed out the changes.
He indicated that some of.the calculations stated by staff were in error, specifically
where it was indicated that the proposed northerly driveway was located 170 feet from
the centerline of the east bound lane on Santa Ana Canyon Road. It was, in fact, 277
feet from the property line, 387 feet from the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and
approximately 320 feet to the centerline of the easterly lane. He indicated that the ~-
architect had redesigned the driveway in that fashion not only considering Council
Policy, but also the Traffic Engineering Department's concern for placing the driveways
back as far as possible. He also showed the location of the turn pocket and cut into
the median.
77-141
~ity Hall~ Anaheim,.California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Woodruff continued, indicating that although the initial request appeared to
be overwhelming, on working with the Planning Commission after the first public
hearing and submission of revised plans deleting the service station, every member
of the Commission agreed that the proposed use was by far the least intense use be-
cause of the very irregular size and shape of the parcel. Their original request
contained eight waivers, three became non-appLicable because they fully compli~
with the code requirements and one was withdrawn leaving only 4 fOr Commission approval
and 3 of those would not exist but for the fact that school property was zoned Ri.
Relative to why the buildings could not be consolidated, Mr. Woodruff explained that
the present design placing the buildings at either end of the property provided two
advantages: (1) it facilitated traffic and parking and, (2) provided a continued
open window to the open space looking across the field. If the buildings were located
in the center, their placement would create a wall, thereby, breaking the view. Also,
only one driveway was now proposed.
Mr. Woodruff indicated that in the past 30 days they had made the project as well known
to the residents as possible and Mr. Allen, being an active businessman and resident
of the canyon, was more than aware of the community interest. Due to the subject
interest, he and his staff discussed the matter with anyone who was interested in the
proposed project. Petitions were also secured and submitted to the City Clerk for
the record, reflecting approximately 297 signatures, all acknowledging that they re-
viewed the plans and were in favor of the proposal. Mr. Woodruff further explained
that the project was one most worthy of development in the canyon, was not offensive
in any respect, and met the general standards, but they still needed waivers with-
regard to setbacks and building height. Relative to signing, the Planning Commission
suggested the matter be set aside because the policy was not yet formalized. Their
signing, however, was low monument as preferred by the Council and would be built
into the landscaping berm.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, President of'-Santa a~a Camyon I~pr®vement Ass~iatien. Inc.,
objected to the proposed project for the following reasons: 1) the Scenic Corridor
Overlay Zone was designed to protect the developer, as well as the homeowner, and
should be enforced; 2) the applicant was aware of the Scenic Corridor Ordinance
before the property was acquired and plans drawn; 3) recent projects approved in
the vicinity of the subject project were required to adhere to all landscaPing,
setbacks, signing, and building heights; this should not be an exception; 4) the
subject location was the entrance way to the Canyon, an area with unique natural
amenities and a sensitive environment seen fit to preserve by the Scenic Corridor
Overlay Zone Ordinance enacted in 1972. Traffic at the subject intersection was
already congested, and additional traffic would create a dangerous situation for
students, since there were three schools in the vicinity.
Mrs. Di~nndorf explained that her association~was not against all development; however~
such developments should conform to the requirements, especially relative to setbacks
now referred to in the Canyon as the "Seymour line". In answer to CouncilwomAn
Kaywood, she stated that she would like to see a building on the property that met
the ordinance.
Relative to the statement that the applicant, Mr. Allen, was a community_minded
realtor, M_rs. Dinndorf contended that if this were sos-then he w®uld want t® conform and
work with the ordinances and residents of the area.
77-i42
~.ty Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8,. I977~ 1:30 p.M.
--~.
Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed, President of the Westridge Homeowners' Association, explaine
that since the Planning Commission hearing, there was much distortion relative to thei
opposition to the project. She emphasized that she and her association were not
opposed to the development of the corner, but opposed to the requested waivers. She
also explained that people from Westridge filed complaints with her because they were
harassed to sign a document they did not want to sign. When these people asked t~
have their names removed from the petition just submitted by Mr. Woodruff, they were
told that the petitions had already been submitted.
Mrs. Hall indicated that the subject corner was already impacted by traffic in that
there were already five ooening$ in a median that was less than a mile long, contrary
to Council policy, wherein four openings were allowed.
She indicated they had previously brought the matter of an integrated sign to the
City's attention, which the applicants promised would be landscaped, something which
was not done even after the owner of the sign was cited by the Zoning Enforcement
Officer. Therefore, there was no guarantee that the same people would do what they
indicated they were going to do now. Mrs. Hall also indicated, in answer to
Councilwoman Kaywood, that some tasteful building or a real estate office would be
acceptable on the subject corner if ~uch a development could be built without any
waivers.
Councilman Roth inquired as to how many residents out of the 297 wished to have their
names removed from the petition.
Mrs. Hall confirmed that over and above the 26 complaints received, there were
approximately 60 to 70 others who wished to do so. She added that Mrs. Dinndorf
received so many calls harassing her as to why she was against the project that
she had to leave her home over a holiday weekend.
Bernardo Yorba, owner and resident of San~ Aha Canyon, gave the background history
of the subject property and explained that after it was acquired, the City extended'
Imperial Highway southerly, creating the present sliver of land but still making it
possible to develop by offsetting Imperial Highway 15 feet, leaving a tOtal of 90 feet.
He maintained that due to the width of the property, if it were developed in complete
compliance with the Scenic Corridor Ordinance having only a 30-foot buildable pad, it
would be impossible and, as well, create a wall-like effect. Relative to the integrated
signs, as pointed out by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Yorba explained.that it was land-
scaped, but subsequently destroyed by horses and kids, and a response had been given
to the City Council. He indicated, further, that the sign would eventually have to
come down, and the lease agreement with the gentlemen who owned it was terminating in
a few months.
In su~wnation, Mr. Woodruff stated that building coverage was approximately 28% of the
site, and that was the reason the buildings were separated as shown on their plans.
With regard to traffic congestion, he contended that it would be difficult to do better
than 132 trips a day, as projected would be generated by their development. He also ....
stated that he would not debate the situation relative to the petitions, but the 26
people who complained could have come forward regarding the matte~. He
concluded by stating that the site needed the development.
77-143
Cit~ Hall~.~qaheim.~.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977z.!.:30P.M..
Councilwoman Ka~ood referred to a letter from Richard Kerwin, Principal of Canyon
High School, indicating that he did not object to the proposed project and, in fact,
would welcome that type of structure. She asked if the letter was solicited.
bir. Woodruff stated that Mr. Allen dfd talk to the principal with regard to a letter.
Mr. Woodruff also answered additional questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative
to the objection in moving the building back from the corner. '
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Discussion followed between Council and staff wherein Traffic Engineer Paul Singer
indicated that 132 trips in 24 hours to that property would be a very low volume.
Therefore, it would not be necessary to waive Council Policy No. 201 concerning the
median cut. It was his opinion that the property could be served by the existing
configuration of the median which provided for both left and "U" turns, and that was
the reason for originally installing it some distance away from Santa Ama Canyon Road
in that particular location. If the medians were brought closer to Santa Aha Canyon
Road, there would be additional congestion at the intersection.
ENVIRO~MENT~. II~PAQT ,REPORT ,% ..NEG~%I..VE_DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that t~is project will have
no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
~ prepare an environmental impact report. Couneilman Seymour temporarily absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Roth stated that he was sympathetic with the Yorba family, as
he recognized the very irregular shape of their property. Due to the fact that they
were going to utilize only 28% of the total coverage and the Planning Commission
recon=nended granting of the proposad use, in part, Councilman Roth offered a resolu-
tion granting Variance No. 2874, subject to the additional stipulations made by the
applicant, as well as the conditions Decommended by the City Planning Commission.
The foregoing resolution failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott and Thom
TEbiPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-77 for adoption denying Variance No. 2874
Refer to Resolution Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-77: A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2874.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywodd, Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth 7
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-77 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber. (3:46 P.M.)
City Hg[i~ Anah~,im? Calif0rn!,a -COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~, 19.77~, 1:3~ P.~,..,
P_J~U~L!C HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2885: Application by Gramercy Park One Owners
Association to permit existing illegal fences on RM-1200 zoned property located at
]800 West Gramercy Avenue with Code waiver of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-262, reported that the
Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls within the defiqition
of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an environmental impact report and.is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require-
ment to file and EIR and, further, recommended that Variance No. 2885 be dehied.
Action of the City Planning Commission was appealed by Gramercy Park One Owners
Association, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City
Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent was present and desirous of being heard.
Mr. Robert James Perkins, 1857 West Katella, Manager and Agent for Gramercy Park One
Owners Association, explained that at the time the enclosures were butlt for the
recreational vehicles approximmtel¥ two years a~o. he went to the PlanninR Demartment
and the Building Division to ascertain'what was necessary in order to construct the
fences. He was told that as long as they were the owners of the property and it was
a chain link fence, the fences could be constructed without a permit. When an addition'-'
fence was proposed to be constructed approximately 6 months prior, he again approached
the same departments and was given the same information with no instructions relative
to height. He was, therefore, not aware there was a Hiolation.
The complaint received from the manager who had apartments on the south side of the
property regarding 'the fence height was basically due to the fact that the associa-
tion's maintenance man was blowing dirt out of the carports and onto the alley and
into the adjacent garages, and had nothing to do with the fences.
Mr. Perkins further explained that the fences enclosed bi~ motorhomes to protect them from
vandalism. He then presented a photograph of a large vehicle which, three weeks
before fence construction was completed, was broken into and suffered $1500 worth of
damages and equipment lost.
The b~yor stated that he had lived on Greenleaf some years ago, an area which had long
been a problem relative to what Mr. Perkins described. He noted that such protection
could not be accomplished with only a 6-foot fence but that, in reality, a 9-foot or
even a'25-foot fence was necessary to p~eclude trespassers.
Mr. Perkins stated that since the higher fences (9 feet 2 inches) were installed, no
damage ~natsoever had occurred.
'Mr. Perkins confirmed for Councilman Roth that no additional objection had been forth-
coming from the manager of the adjoining apartments since the discontinuance of using
air to blow dirt out of the carports. Instead, the carports were now being hosed down
with water.
77-145
City. Hall, AnaheSm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8, 1977~ 1:30.~.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to be heard; there being no response, he closed
the public hearing.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Santalahti explained that the man who appeared
in opposition at the Planning Commission meeting commented basically on the samitation
problem. However, since a variance was requested, he was opposed to that also, but his
initial statement was entirely relative to the blowing of dirt into his area. The
manager subsequently had not been heard from since the Planning Commission meeting.
The Mayor asked Mr. Perkins if he would stipulate, as previously stated, that his
management or association would never use air to clean out carports but, instead,
use water.
Mr. Perkins stipulated to the condition, as well as the fact that he would acquire
building permits for the fences, as suggested by Miss Santalahti.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPQRT ...y..CATE~ORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the
Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 3 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environ-
mental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to
file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-78 for adoption granting Variance No. 2885,
subject to the conditions that water, instead of air, would be used to clean out the
subject carports, and building permits would be acquired for the existing fences.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO 77R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2885.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL P~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-78 duly passed and adopted.
P_UBLIC ..HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1677: Application by Phillips Petroleum
Company, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 301 South Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-263, recommended that the
p=oposed activity be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an 'environ-
mental impact repor~ pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and~ further recommended that Conditional Use Permit No. 1672 be granted,
~ubject to the following conditions:
i. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim-a
15-foot radius property line return.
77-146
City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 8~. 1977t 1:~0 p.~M.~.
2. That the own. er(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of $2.00'per front foot along Broadway and Magnolia Avenue for street lighting
purposes.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum
of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Broadway and Magnolia Avenue for tree ~
planting purposes.
4. That the underground gasoline storage tanks shall either be removed or filled with
sand as approved by the City of Anaheim Fire Department.
.5. That a letter shall be submitted by the property owner requesting termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 603.
6. ~nat subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5; pro-
vided, however, that a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer strip consisting of dense land-
scaping with trees on 10-foot centers shall be provided adjacent to the west property
line, as stipulated to by the petitioner, and plans for said landscaping shall be sub-
mitted to the Planning Department for review and approval; that the two (2) existing
driveways located closest to the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Broadway shall
be closed and replaced with standard curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and' landscaping; that
the driveway on Magnolia Avenue shall be located no closer than 110 feet to the curb
prolongation at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Broadway and that the driveway
on Broadway shall be located a minimum of 115 feet from the center of said driveway
to the curb prolongation at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Broadway.
7. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, 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 date hereof,
whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission and/or City
Council may grant.
8. That Condition Nos. 4 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
A public hearing was scheduled this date at the request of Councilwoman Kaywood at the
January 11, 1977 meeting.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City
Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent was present and desirous of being heard.
Mr. Allan Holmes, Vice-President of Pizza Huts of Orange County, who was purchasing
the property from the Petroleum Company, representing Mr. Charles Quinette, agent,
indicated he was at the meeting to answer any questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a letter received from a resident of 2614 West
Broadway, adjacent to the proposed project, wherein he opposed the restaurant but,
more specifically, the permitting of on-sale beer and wine. She 'asked if beer and wine
would be sold in conjunction with the serving of food or by itself if an individual
should ask for either of the two beverages.
77-147
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MI~TES - February 8~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Holmes indicated first that the acquisition of a beer and wine license was a pre-
requisite to their proceeding further on any properties, and that beer and wine
consumption represented approximately only 7% of Pizza Hut's total sales. He further
stated that there were no problems associated with the consumption of beer and wine
at their other units in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. He indicated,
howeger, that either of the beverages would be served separately without food if a
customer asked for them, although it was very rare for people to come into their'
establishments for that specific purpose because there were many other places more
conduGive to that type of use.
Councilwoman Ka}~ood stated that in the past, approval of on-sale beer and wine was
tied in with the serving of food only, and since the proposed establishment was so close
to the Max~ell School and Haskett Branch Library, she'wanted such a condition included.
Relative to potential parking problems, Mr. Holmes indicated that 20 parking spaces
were required and they were supplying 33. He did not know how it was possible to
control on-street parking by clientele, but such control could be exercised over their
employees. He stated that parking problems did not exist at their other locations.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Mrs. Hammdorf, 311 Gain Street, first indicated that the proposed restaurant would
be an improvement on the subject corner, as opposed to a gas station, as well as its
present unsightliness. However, it was her opinion thatthe area was oversaturated
with eating places, and a potential parking problem might also be created. In the
final analysis, she did not have any objection to the proposed restaurant.
Councilman Roth agreed that the subject corner and intersection was one of the most
unsightly in West Anaheim, and almost any improvement would ultimately improve the
whole neighborhood.
There being no further persons who wished to be heard, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL II~PACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIOM: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will
have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the.
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-79 for adoption granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1672 as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to the applicant's
stipulation that beer and wine would be served in conjunction with food only. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. .77R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1672.
77-t4{
C_ji_{)' Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977~ !:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL I~EMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-79 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDIT%.O~A~.. USE.~ERMIT NO.. 1~7.9: Application by Anaheim Properties
to permit a 3-story office complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the
south side of Freedman Way, southwest side of Manchester, and on the west side of
Haster Street.
The City Planning Commission, purmuant to Resolution No. PC77-8 recommended that the
subject property be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California.Environmental Quality Act,
and, further, recommended that Conditional Use Permit No. 1679 be denied with the
additional recommendation that the City Council set the matter for public hearing.
}~yor Thom left the Council Chamber. (4:09 P.M.)
Appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed by David W. Hook, Agent and
public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the
findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City
Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a letter dated February 7, 1977 from R. J. Datel,
District Director of the State Department of Transportation, to State Senator Paul B.
Carpenter, wherein it was noted that the Anaheim-Haster Overcrossing: project was
not in the Department's planning program in the foreseeable future. The letter further
indicated that the Department had .no objection if the City granted a permit for the
development of the subject property. It was her opinion, however, that the letter was
not valid, since at the SCAG Executive Committee meeting in November, 1976, when the
overcrossing was turned down because it was considered to be a local item, she pursued
the matter as the result of which it was included in a highway evaluation report to
establish priorities with a decision to be forthcoming within 6 months relative to the
status of the proposed interchange. She noted that it'still would be a couple of
months before an answer was received with the likelihood that the overcrossing would
be included in the list of priorities.
Mayor Pro-Tem Seymour asked if the applicant or his agent was present and wished to
be heard.
The M. ayor returned to the Council Chamber. (4:15 P.M.)
Mr. David Hook, 501 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 308, Sunset Construction, Agent,
illustrated the proposed project from a drawing showing that it encompassed 8 acres,
consisted of ~hree, 3-story commercial buildings approximately 40 feet in height
surrounded by a genermns portion of greenbelt, an overabundance of parking and,
overall, a very Iow density factor. He stated that basically the same plan would be
applied, to the proposed building as those at one of their other projects at Brookhurst
and Crescent Avenue. Relative to traffic generation, if it were developed in a commer-
cial/recreational mode, peak traffic would occur at the same time as that generated by
Disneyland and the Convention Center, while a commercial office center's peak traffic
times would be at 8:00 A~M' and 5:00 P.M.
77-149
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES- February 8, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hook also stated that the proposed Anaheim/Haster Overcrossing would not inter-
fere with the project at all, even though arrangements had been previously reade with
the State by the City to provide a 56-foot piece of the subject real estate since
their first building would be over 200 feet away from that point. He also stated
that they would grant that piece of property to the City at this time, as well as
submit to the sharing of a traffic signal, as such a signal would be beneficial
generally. He explained that the only portion of land involved would be in the~align-
ment of Haster Street. If Haster Street were to be developed as the plan indicated,
it would trisect their property leaving access in and out of the site restricted.. Mr.
Hook further elaborated on the surrounding uses concluding that although the Property
was master planned for a CR zone, it was his opinion that:, in reality, it was basically
just commercial.
Mr. Hook explained that they must put the land to some form of use considering the
burden of carrying 8 acres in the City of Anaheim. He also saw nothing on the drawing
board for at least 7 years regarding State plans. They would be happy to sell the
property to the City if it was needed, otherwise they needed the permission to build.
He further indicated that they could submit a set'of plans that complied with all
City ordinances and be issued a permit for the complying items for-instance, for
a motel. However, they were not in the motel business. He added that they had 11
other buildings in the City with 100% occupancy with a request presently for up to
60,000 square feet at the proposed project involving only two major tenants.
Mr. Fred Werk, 611 Prarie Place, General Counsel and Business Director for Melodyland
Christian Center, stated that they wanted to see the property developed for recrea-
tional uses and indicated that Disneyland changed their front entry on Freedman Way
in anticipation of the State project coming through that area. He explained that
Melodyland had purchased three or four parcels of the subject property themselves
as they wanted to develop it with recreational interests in mind accentuating the
Disneyl~nd area, recreational activities that would draw additional people, as well
as a special type of religious center not available anywhere else in the world. Their'
goal was to purchase the remaining property but the situation regarding the overpass
had stalled several negotiations. He contended that their proposed use would be much
more compatible to community uses.
In answer to Council Members Seymour and Kaywood, Mr. Werk indicated that, as a phil-
osophy, they were generally opposed to the type of development under consideration
although they were not opposed to Anaheim Properties. In fact, verbal negotiations
had occurred at different times over the past year with Anaheim Properties and
Melodyland's President, Dr. Wilkerson, relatiUe to purchasing additional land.
Mr. Roger Grable, 401 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, Attorney for the Applicant, asked
for clarification by the Traffic Engineer of certain areas indicated on the map.- It
was concluded that the type of improvement as proposed by the State could be handled
in a different way without impacting the subject property but it would require a re-
design of the interchange as it was visualized today.
The point Mr. Grable wished to make was that if the City did not want the property to
develop because of the proposed State plan, they were then going to have to ask the
City to acquire the property. The real issue was whether the City wanted another hotel
or motel on the property or the commercial use they were proposing.
There being no further persons who wished to be heard, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
77-150
~ity Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~ February 8~ ~.977~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood observed that if the project was approved and Caltrans included
the interchange in their budget, the taxpayer would be asked to contribute approximate~
one million dollars considering the value of their building, or the City could decline
the needed interchange project. She, therefore, asked staff if there were any other
similar areas in the City where such a revised interchange could affect the land,develop-
Mr. Maddox indicated that Harbor and Ball and the Crescent Street overcrossing are
being considered. ,
Councilman Seymour considered Councilwoman Kaywood's remarks to be appropriate although
possible alternatives were not offered. He thereupon inquired of Mr. Maddox and Mr.
Singer what other alternatives there were to the proposed interchange alignment at the
same location.
Discussion followed wherein it was ascertained that there were other alternatives al-
though any redesign would mean a complete and total redesign of the interchange which
would consume a year or two of subsequent public hearings since, under an existing
agreement with Caltrans, plans were 99% complete at this point. It was concluded that
it would take two to three years time for revised plans alone to reach the stage of
final approval.
Mr. Singer indicated that one of the problems of primary concern was aligning the
freeway offramps as close together as possible. The present on- an~ off-ramp at
Freedman Way and Manchester would still remain but would have'-a direct link'with ~-~
Haster for good circulation. He then elaborated on the steps that would have to be
taken to revise the present plans. In the fina% analysis, however, in the event
an alternate plan was not acceptable and the original was adopted, the City would
only be responsible for a very small portion of land parallel with Haster Street.
During subsequent discussion between Council and staff, a letter was presented to
Council from a gentleman in the audience addressed to Mr. J. D. Shane of Globe
Properties in Los Angeles, from R. F. Blocker, Chief, Project Development, Branch "B",
of the State of California, Department of Transportation, dated January 18, 1977.
Councilman Seymour read the letter, the essence of which was a reiteration of the
fact that the Anaheim-Haster Overcrossing Project was not in the Department's planning
program for the foreseeable future but if the situation did change and the State needed
to acquire a part of the property, the City's obligation would be minor involving only
a small sliver of land parallel with Haster Street as previously explained byMr. Singer.
Councilman Roth interjected that since the subject property was under a resolution of
intent to CR zone, the owners could proceed to improve the property dollar wise. If
the City prevented them from so doing, the result would constitute inverse condemnation.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Hooks stated that the proposed project wonld cost
about $3,500,000 and the property taxes were calculated to be approximately $100,000
per year.
Councilman Seymour stated that considering the overall situation, he was favorably dis
posed to the project. He was of the opinion that the City should not deprive itself
of a"Class ~'development and the subsequent financial benefits while waiting for Cai-
trams to deliver something that was promised but now, according to the letters received,
supposedly eliminated from their planning. However, if the Anaheim-Haster Overcrossing
77-151
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINU%ES - February 8~ 1977~ 1:~0 p~M.
should become a reality, there were other alternatives even though such alternatives
would require a redesign. Further, the City would also be protected in regard to Haster
Street as the applicant o stipulated to the required dedication of the small portion
of land that would need to be acquired.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that, in any event, the City should wait three months
for an answer relative th the highway evaluation report to see whether or not the~inter-
change was to be included in the list of priorities.
ENVIRONMENTAL IM]PACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no
significant effect on the environment.and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-80 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1679 subject to Interdepartmental conditions and conditions relative to
dedication and traffic signal as stipulated to by the developer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1679.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The M~yor declared Resolution No. 77R-80 duly passed and adopted.
158: ACCEPTANCE OF DEEDS BY STAFF: As outlined in joint memorandum dated February 1, 1977,
from the City Manager and City Attorney, Mr. Talley recommended approval of authoriza-
tion for the City Manager and the Public Works Director to accept and consent to deeds
or grants conveying real estate or any interest therein to the City of Anaheim.
Councilman Seymour was concerned there was a possibility the City could be in a position
where it might be offered property it did not want. In that event, the policy making
body could be precluded from making that decision.
Mr. Talley stated that in any caste other than routine business, the matter would be
directed to the Council's attention and the recommendation was made merely as a con-
tinuation of the policy to streamline the agenda.
The Mayor indicated, however, that he could not approve such action because it precluded
human error.
Councilman Kott stated that he was not interested in having the item removed from the.
weekly agenda. He also pointed out that the Public Works Director did not come under
the authority of direct control of the City Council and as an'elected.official, he would
hesitate to relinquish control to someone over whom he had no control. He would,
therefore, vote negatively on the proposal.
~ity H~!i~.. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 197.7~ !:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the'matter was removed
from the agenda and no action taken. MOTION CARRIED.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3651: Relative to the proposed ordinance, Councilwoman Kaywood
expressed her concern that to lower the minimum age requirement for tow truck drivers'
permits from 21 years of age to 18 years of age would tend to increase insurance rates
since the 18- to 20-year old age group had the highest accident rate.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated it would be the option of the individual employer as
to whether or not someone under 21 should be hired and that approximately 3 requests
had been received in the last two months asking for the change.
Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3651 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3651:. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Ab~NDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER
4.74, SECTION 4.74.050, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TOW TRUCK DRIVERS'
PERMIT.
123: JOINT POWERS FIRE TRAINING FACILITY: City Attorney Hopkins explained that
relative to the Joint Powers Fire Training Facility Agreement between Anaheim,
Garden Grove and OranRe, an amendment was necessary to designate the Controller of
Garden Grove as the Treasurer of the Authority. Further, arrangements were being
made with the construction contractor regarding the acquisition of insurance cover-
ing liability. He explained the two alternatives for purchasing Such insurance and
recommended that the Authority obtain its own insurance as a separate entity. Even
though this would involve a contribution by the City~ it would be a more direct route
whereas if each city added the Authority to their existing policy, it would involve
three different insurance brokers and would be more complex.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-81 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 5,
1976, BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM, GARDEN GROVE AND ORANGE (JOINT POWERS FIRE
TRAINING FACILITY) AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-81 duly passed and adopted.
By general Council consent, it was determined that the Authority would obtain its
insurance as a separate entity, apart from the individual member cities.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, ONE FOUR-DOOR INTERMEDIATE STATION WAGONAND 19 COMPACT
POLICE SEDANS - BID NO. 3146: (continued from t~e meeting of February 1, 1977) City
~r ~ ~e-~er~ed to th---e two memos submitted from the Department of Finance both
dated February 4, 1977, relative to Bid No.
1977.
3146 as requested at the meeting of February 1,
77-153
City.Hall~ Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.February 8~ 197~ 1:30 P.M.
Concerning the bid for one 4-door intermediate station wagon (specification b~76/77-05)
Mr. Talley continued to recommend the purchase from Santa Aha Dodge since their§ was
the low bid. Requests for bids had been submitted to a number of agencies, and three
responsible bids were received and returned.
Relative to the 19 police sedans and the Council's concern over the low number of'bids
received (3), Mr. Talley reported that the Purchasing Agent recommended the bids be
rejected and solicitation made to Chevrolet agencies only with a copy of the specifi-
cations to be sent to the Area Zone Manager.
With regard to Vern Trider Chevrolet and as pointed out in the memorandum, a bid was
sent to them on the 19 police cars; however, it could not be proven. Mr. Talley further
indicated that bids had been sent to Vern Trider on repeated occasions but in the last
year only one was received back from them although the indication was that if a bid
was again sent to them on the 19 subject units, they would be interested in responding.
Councilman Kott asked if the Police Department considered all other cars to be inferior
before or after the submission of invitation to bid.
Mr. Talley indicated that in both cases the preference was for 1977 Novas and this was
the acceptable vehicle on the testing done by the Los Angeles Police Department; there-
fore, he concurred in the original recommendation.
Councilman Kott requested that a policy be established where, if the City wanted to
purchase Chevrolets, for example, that they not go to Ford, Dodge or the like for
bidding.
Mr. Talley agreed with the recommendation.
Mr. Jack Glenning of Vern Trider Chevrolet stated that he was the person who received
all bids which he passed to his fleet man who, in turn, did the bidding. He indicated
he knew of only one instance where they failed to bid on a City bid because they had
prior information that the factory (Chevrolet Division) was going to assist the Chev-
rolet dealer in Santa Ana. Since Vern Trider was not able to acquire a factory assist,
if the bid were submitted, there would be no way of obtaining it because it would be
well over the factory assist bid. He stated the only time his company refused to bid
was when the factory assist was involved because their competitors would have an $800
to $900 advantage per un±t.
Mr. Glenning, in answer to Councilman Roth, explained that when he spoke to the
factory they stated it was their policy to give an assist to one dealership only and
they felt the dealership in Santa Ana had a better opportunity to acquire the bid.
Therefore, Vern Trider was not going to get the assist.
The Mayor acknowleged the problem and stated that he was concerned about losing the
1% sales tax to another city and to that end wanted the possibility explored of
communicating with the Chevrolet Motor Division urging them to offer the same factory
assist to Vern Trider Chevrolet.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned over the time frame involved because in the
meantime, prices might escalate.
City Hali~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FebruarY.~8, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley, speaking from extensive past experience in similar situations, was of
the opinion that the factory may not even comment on the matter. He explained that
four model years ago, all companies gave dealer assistance on local government bids
but subsequently ceased doing so resulting in the institution of legal proceedings
by a number of agencies ~long with many cities, and litigations were still in process.
This drove the cost of acquiring vehicles up approximately 20%. It was Mr. Talle~'s
opinion that the factory would not want to expose themselves to show a favoritism
in this particular case as well.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the bid of Santa Ana Dodge
Company was accepted and purchase in the amount of $5,253.89, including tax, for one
4-door intermediate station wagon, Bid No. 3146 (Spec. MM76/77-05) was authorized.
MOTION CARRIED. '
Further discussion followed wherein it was ascertained that no legal problem would
be created in asking the factory to favor the City's local dealer with the same
assist as they might give any other dealer along with the bid specifications planned
to be sent to the Zone Manager.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, all bids received on Bid
No. 3146, i9 compact police sedans portion only, were rejected and rebid requested
and staff was instructed to write to the Chevrolet Division of General Motors re-
questing factory assist for Vern Trider Chevrolet. MOTION CARRIED.
169 A~ID 174: WORK ORDER NOS. 127~, .896~ 16~5 AND 1656: (Hancock Place Improvement
and Areawide Water System Improvement, Community Development Block Grant Program)
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, award Of bids under
the subject Work Orders was postponed for two weeks as recommended by the City Engineer.
MOTION CA~RRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQ.~IpMENT~ ONE HILLSIDE MOWER - BID NO. 3172: On motion by Council-
man Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of B. Hayman Company was
accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,584.10, including tax, as recom-
mended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 24,.1977. MOTION
CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, TWO PORTABLE AIR COMPRESSORS - BID NO. 3181: Councilman
Kott stated that he wanted to see at least one more response to the subject bid over
and above the one firm bid received as he contended there must be more than three
companies who made air compressors.
Mr. Talley indicated that out of the three vendors to whom bids were sent, one explained
that they sold the equipment but forwarded it to their factory representative -for pric-
ing and subsequently it was not received back in time; the other company knew that a
bid had been sent to Ingersoll Rand, so they declined to bid because they could not be
competitive price wise.
Councilman Kott wanted to know if Southgate (the late bidder) was asked what their
bid was when they called to say they would be a late response.
Mr. Taliey stressed that the clear instructions previously set forth relative to the
non-acceptance of late bids was strictly adhered to.
Councilman Kott was of the opinion, however, that if $1,000 or $2,000 could be saved
by allowing that company to rebid, he saw nothing wrong with so doing.
77-155
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februayy 8~ i977~ 1:30 P.M.
It was Mr. Talley's opinion that all possible had been done to solicit three qualified
competitive bids.
Councilman Seymour agreed that Councilman Kott's concern was a valid one and suggested
that when it was known bids would be difficult to obtain, a larger number should be
solicited, thereby insuring an open bid process. ,
Further discussion followed between Council and staff and a recommendation resulting
from the discussion was that, in the future, at least three qualified bids must be.
obtained showing prices on the tabulation sheet as opposed to mere solicitations even
though it might take a greater number of solicitations in some cases to obtain the
necessary three.
Councilman Kott suggested that in this case all bids be rejected and rebid requested.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if this were done, she wanted to know the difference
in cost as she was concerned that the price might escalate in the interim.
Councilman Seymour recognized that such a situation might occur but expressed his
annoyance over the fact that the Council was continually being confronted with re-
curring problems relative to the bidding process.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, all bids received on
Bid ~:o. 3181 were rejected and rebid requested along with instructions that
in the future a minimum of three qualified bids with prices be obtained relative to
the purchase of equipment. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURC}~SE OF EqUIPMENT,..TWO HYDRAULIC DUMP BODIES - BID NO. 3188: On motion by
Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of Universal Truck Body, Inc.,
was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $9,737.50, including tax, as
recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 31, 1977. MOTION
CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, ONE lQ,000 GVW CAB/CHASSIS REPLACEMENT - BID NO. 3147: On
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of McCoy Ford was
accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $5,582.59, including tax, as recom-
mended by the Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent in his memorandum dated February 2,
1977. MOTION CARRIED.
105: ESTABLISHMENT OF ANAHEIM YOUTH COMMISSION: Suzanne M. DeLesk and Pamela Le Narz
jointly presented a proposal to the Council relative to the establishment of an Anaheim
Youth Commission.
The Mayor expressed his complete accord with the recommendations presented which was
the outcome of approximately one year§ work. Councilman Seymour also commended both
presentors for bringing to fruition the establishment of a Youth Commission.
Minor amendments to the proposal resulting from Council discussion were: (1) under "A",
Creation And Membership, Item 2, "The nine (9) members will be appointed for staggered
two (2) year terms by the City Council."; (2) also under "A", Item 5, replace the word
"should" with "shall"; (3) under "C", examples of Youth Commission Projects, Item 1,
relative to Youth In Government Day, add to it that those chosen be Anaheim residents
only. These changes were recommended by Council Members Seymour, KOtt and Kaywood re-
spectively. Miss DeLesk and Miss Le Narz concurred with the proposed amendments.
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ Cal~fo~nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~, 1977~ !,:~Q ~M.,
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman' Kaywood, the City Attorney
was instructed to draw up an ordinance establishing the Anaheim Youth Commission as
proposed with the amendments as recommended by Council Members. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: Submitted by Cedu Foundatio~ for
door-to-door solicitation from April 1 through May 30, 1977.
Report dated January 28, 1977, from the City Attorney's Office was also submitted.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, application for door-
to-door solicitation from April 1 through May 30, 1977, from the Cedu Foundation was
denied. MOTION CARRIED.
162: ERECTION OF TENT FOR OPEN HOUSE: Request by Ken Stollmeyer, Abbey Rents, to
erect a tent for an Open House at American Lock and Key SupplY Inc., 1169 North Grove
Street on February 13, 1977.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, request to erect a tent for
the subject Open House was approved as recommended in reports submitted by the City
Attorney and the Fire, Police, Public Works and Planning Departments with instructions
to staff to study a fee for the handling of such requests. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Counc'-'-
man Roth, application for Public Fireworks Display Permit filed by the California Fire-
works Display Company on behalf of the California Angels, to discharge fireworks at
Anaheim Stadium, July 4, 1977, starting at dusk, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
129: 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS SPECTACULAR: As a preface to the request of Mr. Tommy
Walker, relative to the 4th of July Fireworks Spectacular at Anaheim Stadium, Mr.
Red Patterson, General Manager of the California Angels, explained some changes that
were possibly going to take place regarding the baseball league setup which, if such
changes were instituted, would preclude the possibility of guaranteeing the Angels
would be at home every other year on July 4th. Although the Angels did not oppose
Tommy Walker staging his Fireworks Spectacular July 4, 1978, they were opposed-to the
granting of any dates beyond that time. On the years the Angels were not in town on
July 4th, they would cooperate with Tommy Walker and would even like to use his name
on the years they were in town.
Mr. Tommy Walker, 1381 Walnut Street, proposed that he be granted a permit to provide
Fireworks Spectaculars at Anaheim Stadium for an eight-year period from July 4, 1978
through July 4, 1985, but not contradictory to the Angels contract with the City. He
did state that from a business point of view, he would like to see a Tommy Walker
Patriotic 4th of July Spectacular at the Stadium every 4th of July. He elaborated on
the preliminary meetings he had with Mr. Patterson relative to the matter, whereby the
City and the taxpayers could receive two revenues by having a game in the afternoon
and a fireworks spectacular in the evening. However, such an arrangement could not
be worked out. Regardless of how the baseball schedule was finalized, Mr. Walker wanted_~
to be certain that there was a major patriotic fireworks spectacular in the Stadium on
every July 4th.
77-157
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 19772 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor explained that he was empathetic to Mr. Walker because he had taken the
forefront in staging such productions since the Stadium was constructed and initially
set the spirit. He was in favor of granting Mr. Walker's request although he was cog-
nJzant of the problem it would present--it would not prohibit the California Angels
from haviag a'baseball game on July 4th, but it would preclude them from staging,fire-
works forcing them to turn to Tommy Walker and Tommy Walker only. In his opinion, the
optimum situation was to have both a baseball game and a fireworks spectacular thereby
combining the best of both worlds. To this end, he was interested in bringing both
parties together on the issue.
Councilman Seymour, although he concurred with what the Mayor was attempting to do,
indicated that if the parties involved could not work out a satisfactory arrangement
and considering the recommendations from Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director Liegler
and the report from City Attorney Hopkins, he was of the opinion that not much could
be done about the situation.
Discussion followed between Council and staff revolving around the implications of
paragraph 4 of the.present lease agreement with the California Angels wherein City
Attorney Hopkins clarified that the subject provision permitted incidental uses and
although it did not specifically use the word "fireworks", the contract was interpreted
as including fireworks displays and other related activities; however, a permit from
the Council would be necessary to actually use fireworks.
~e Mayor concluded that the real problem was in the fact that the permit would still
be required.
Relative to scheduling as outlined by Mr. Patterson, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out
that by February 21, information would be available as to whether or not a game was
scheduled on July 4th and plans could be made accordingly..
Mr. Walker explained that he would prefer to know before that date in the interest of
presenting the best show possible. Al'though such an arrangement held up production, he
had been able to work on that basis in the past. He also pointed out that there was
an open date on July 3, 1977. In view of this open date, he recommended that since
the Angels had the contract for the Stadium, he suggested that an action be taken
whereby any other party would be precluded from staging a production either 10 days
before or after July 4th other than the party who had the contract to do so. If he
got the contract,'he wanted to be protected.
Councilman Roth indicated that other than baseball had to be considered, for instance,
r.ock concert productions sometimes incorporated fireworks displays.
The Mayor indicated that the rock concert could be permitted but not the fireworks.
Councilman Seymour assessed that Tommy Walker needed protection when he had the right'
to stage the show. However, the City had long before reached an agreement with the
Angels at which time they gave away the right to stage fireworks to the ~gels each
4th of July if a baseball game was scheduled on that date. He voiced the opinion that
~ity Hall, Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February.8~ 1977~.1.:30 ~-.M-
the City had the responsibility to go beyond that technicality and he was willing
to do whatever was necessary to insure quality of performance hut he did not con-
sider that such assurance included reneging on the agreement made with the Angels.
Mr. Walker reiterated that his proposal was that he be granted a permit for the 4th
of July at Anaheim Stadium to stage fireworks spectaculars but not contradictory Go
the California Angels contract with the City. His concern was in trying to protect
an effort he originated, which effort he did not wish to lose. He also wanted Council's
reaffirmation that his work was respected in light of ~is past performances and in
consideration of the awards he had brought to the community. This affirmation, how-
ever, should be reduced to writing to ~ssure that he would be protected on the dates
.requested when he was not precluded by the Angels.
The Mayor suggested that staff draw up an agreement with Mr. Walker to that effect.
Councilman Seymour expressed that the reason a Tommy Walker Production was successful
was because of Tommy Walker himself. He wanted to be certain that Mr. Walker personally
was responsible for these spectaculars to insure their consistent quality. If he were
not involved, then any contractual arrangement would cease.
Further discussion followed wherein Councilman Roth also highly complimentaCy of previous
Tommy Walker Productions, expressed his concern about entering into a long range con-
tract with first-right-of-refusal thereby precluding others who may offer a greater
amount of revenue to the City for staging such productions. He also did not favor --~
locking in future Councils by making such a long range decision today.
Councilman Seymour and Mayor Thom both agreed that the matter of patriotism and a
high quality production on such an important date in the Country's history took
priority.over any potential financial gain.
Relative to the agreement the City had with the Angels (Goldenwest Baseball Company),
Mr. Walker considered his request to be in harmony with that agreement.
Mr. Patterson indicated first that under the new concept of scheduling, they would
kno~ approximately in November when and where games would be played. He indicated
that the idea of having a day game and fireworks at night was an oversimplification
as the game would have to start about noon or earlier in order to give the promoter
time to set up for fireworks. Under those circumstances, the loss to the Angels woul~
be in the tens of thousands and the loss to the visiting club in the thousands; in
both cases there would have to be some recompense. He went on to explain some of the
alternatives discussed in the previous meeting on the subject, none of which came
to pass. He was of the o~inion that if they had to ask for a permit every time they
wanted to present a fireworks show, no one else should have an advantage over that
procedure. He stressed that the Angels, being a major tenant of the Stadium, should
not be treated like any other organization wanting to stage an event at the Stadium
for which a permit was necessary. He emphasized that if they ran the risk of losing
their primary rights to the 4th of July and the fireworks, then he would have to
withdraw any support he had for the idea that Tommy Walker should be given a permit
through 1985. He stated that the issue was being confused in that all Mr. Walker
wanted was to have the assurance that he would be allowed to stage a spectacular on
the years the Angels were not in town.
77-159
City Hall~..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Walker confirmed that Mr. Patterson's assessment of the matter was correct.
Mr. Patterson also contended that the wrong paragraph in the agreement was being
referred to and pointed out that, in fact, there was a section relative to scheduling
wherein the Angels had ~he right to say what time ball games would be played. H~
pointed out that if a July 4th game was scheduled and simultaneously a permit was
granted to someone else for fireworks, then they could schedule their game at 8 p.m.
which, in essence, would pre-empt the permit.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed this to be so.
Councilman Kott questioned the value of an exclusive contract with Tommy Walker as
well as the fact that if the City committed itself to such a contract, Tommy Walker
should also be willing to obligate himself in guaranteeing that a fireworks display
would be provided.
Councilman Seymour pointed to the two main advantages, (1) That Tommy Walker had a
firm commitment that he could present his Fireworks Spectacular when the Angels
were not in town and, (2) the City would have a very high quality fireworks spec-
tacular with the largest attendance resulting in a greater financial remuneration.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Attorney was
instructed to prepare an agreement with Tommy Walker of Tommy Walker Productions
granting an exclusive right to provide fireworks spectaculars on July 4th from 1978
through 1985, when ghe California Angels were not occupying Anaheim Stadium on that
date and. precluding any other fireworks displays at the Stadium 10 days before or
10 days after July 4th, the latter also being reserved for the California Angels.
To this motion, Councilman Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Thom moved to recess to 7:30 P.M., Chartres Recreation Center,
222 East Chartres Street, for a public discussion on the Modjeska Park Community
Building. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:07 P.M.)
Chartres Recreation Center, 222 E~st Chartres. Street, Anaheim, California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8, 1977, 7:30
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:30 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT:
ASSISTA~T CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CItY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT: Lloyd Trapp
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222 East Chartres Street~ Anaheim, California
CObqqCIL MINUTES -Feb. ruary 8~ 1977~. 7!30 .P.M.
150 - PUBLIC DISCUSSION - P.ROPOSED MODJESKA PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING: Mayor Thom
noted that at the Council meeting of January 25, 1977, in response to a request
by citizens opposed to the construction of the Modjeska Park Community Building
this additional public meeting was scheduled for further Public imput on the sub-
ject. He announced that'Mr. Mark Duncan of the Economic Development Administra-
tion was present to observe the me,ting.
Mr. Ruth explained that his role in this evening's discussion would most probably
be that of responses to questions and comments; that since the last public discus-
sion on this pro~ect additional staff work had been completed and a public meeting
held yesterday evening to explore alternatives.
Mr. Gary Kriegeg Chairman,-Parks and Recreation Commission reported that a sub-committee
of the Commission working on an informal basis had drawn the conclusion that there was a
great need for the recreation building which was well established by a wide variety
of zroups. In their opinion, the Modjeska site was the most desirable as far as usage
was concerned because of the 47,000 people living in its direct service area with pedes-
trian accessibility by one junior high, one high school and several elementary schools.
It was recognized by the sub-committee that increased traffic was of concern to those
living in the park service area, the problem being especially notable on weekends.
In considering an alternative, the.Brookhurst Park site was praposed, which has one high
school within walking distance and two adjacent schools. When the proposed relocation
plans were presented at a public meetin~ they gained acceptance frOm those living with-
in the Brookhurst Park community. Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Commission recom-
mended that the proposed community building to be constructed with EDA Funds be reloca~ted
to Brookhurst Park and that the multi-purpose area be restored to its originally plan-
ned capacity.
Mayor Thom invited members of the public to address the Council regarding the proposed
community park building.
Mr. Jim Osdick, 1612 Songish Street, voiced opposition to construction of the community
center building at Modjeska Park on the basis that although funds for construction will
be provided through a Federal Grant, the operating budget· for the years after construc-
tion will be borne by direct taxation. He concluded that the area residents wish
to keep Modjeska Park green and spacious. He concurred with the Parks and Recreation
Commission recommendation and requested that the Council make the decision to Change
the location of the community building to Brookhurst Park.
Jean Bell, 709 South Hanover Street, stated that she works in Scouting and that this
building will provide an opportunity for the Scout groups to have a year round meet-
ing place and a facility for larger gatherings which was not previously available to
them within the City of Anaheim. She stated that the citizens want the building in
Brookhurst Park, and will use, appreciate and take care of it.
Mrs. Betty Marquardt, 1665 South Nutwood, stated that-she would still prefer the build-~
lng be constructed at Modjeska Park; that 2 acres out of the 24-acre site at Modjeska
Park would still leave sufficient open green areas. She advised that she has followed
the progress of the Modjeska Park building since the inception of plans for it in 1960; .
77-161
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222 East Chartres Street~ Anaheim, California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 8~ 1977~ 7:30 P.M.
that Anaheim taxpayers funds were used for acquisition of park sites and for park
development and construction in other areas of the City. She was sorry that now
whe[~ there was an opportunity for West Anaheim to receive a park improvement, the
public was still fussing about a building which was planned in 1960.
Mr. Glen Feliciano, 916 Quincy Avenue, affiliated with the Pop Warner Football Pro-
gram, stated that despite the fact that they would be losing one playing field at
Brookhurst Park, they still support the relocation of the community building to ~hat
site.
Stacy Snider, 1608 Songish Street, read a letter from Mrs. L. L. Faircloth, Vice
Principal of Trident Junior High School, expressing the viewpoint of two students
at the school in opposition to construction of a community building at Modjeska
Park. In addition, she submitted a petition in opposition signed by 198 students
of Trident Junior High and 50 students, parents and citizens.
Jerry Hansen, 1740 West Sally Lane, President of the Southwest Anaheim Little League,
read a letter which they had forwarded to Mr. Mark Smith, Regional Director, Economic
Development Administration, Seattle, Washington, indicating that their Executive
Board voted unanimously in favor of keeping Modjeska Park green. They solidly oppose
the construction of additional buildings and/or parking lots at Modjeska Park. He
concurred that the Brookhurst Park site was the more appropriate location.
Reverend Richard Valendigham, 32665 Mission Trail Road, Elsinore, observed that his
community faced a similar decision and stressed the importance of providing a co~mmun-
ity center for youth with organized programs and guidance.
Frances .Shore, 926 Monterrey, spoke in favor of utilizing the Brookhurst site for the
building.
Mrs. Neva Parsons recounted the various problems encountered within Modjeska Park be-
cause it was not sufficiently lighted and contended that'with a community center buil'd-
ing and supervised programs, there would be fewer such difficulties.
Mr. John Turanitza, 1873 West Castle Avenue, thanked the Council for this additional
opportunity to discuss the project, indicated that it was not his group's intent to
stop the project. Mr. Turanitza cont.ended that the traffic figUres quoted in the EDA
application did not account for increases experienced on weekends and furthermore,
these readings were taken before the Church of Anaheim was opened. He concluded that
the impact of a community building in Brookhurst would be minimal as compared to
Modjeska and, therefore, should be placed there. He indicated that he was, however,
opposed to construction in the parks in general and would prefer they remain open
green spaces.
Elsie Reed, 904 Fairview, a resident of the Brookhurst Park vicinity, reiterated that.
at the informational meeting, the Brookhurst community was enthusiastic about the pro-
posed building and, therefore, to continue a discussion as to why the residents of
Modjeska Park's service area find the proposed building objectionable served no pur-
pose.
77~:162 ,,
Chartres Recr..e..ation Center, 2,22 East Chartres Stree~, A. nah,eim, Cali~orn, i?
couNciL MIN,UTES - F~brua. ry 8~ ~1~977, 7.:30 ~. M, '
Mr. John Flocken, 1320 South Hacienda Street, speaking as a resident and citizen,
indicated his concerns over additional costs and additional taxation. He urged
that the public attend the forthcoming Budget hearings and take an interest in
formulation of next year's Budget. He challenged the citizens present to come
forward at that time with suggestions as to what services they might be willing
to do without in order td retain their lowered tax rate.
Mrs. Belindo, 2356 Moro Place, voiced her support for the community center at
Brookhursto
Mr. Joe White, 809 West Broadway, stated that ModJeska Park is the correct place to
.put this bulding for the people.
Mayor Thom closed the public discussion.
Mr. James Ruth advised that it was his department's recommendation, as was indicated
earlier by the Parks and Recreation Commission, that the proposed building be located
in Brookhurst Park and that plans and specifications be approved with restoration of
the building to its originally planned size.
Council discussion ensued during which each Council Member expressed his or her personal
viewpoint of the situation. Councilman Kott stressed that this City Council is fiscally
conservative, however if these Federal funds were available, it seemed wise to accept
these as a return on taxes paid.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that the City Council has been most accom-
modating in its efforts to be open and responsive to all sectors of the public in
this mm. ttero She read sections from the "Handbook for New Council }[embers" describ-
ing the services provided by municipal governments and the responsibilities of the
Council to plan and act for the entire City. She felt the Modjeska site was proper,
but with the threat of injunction and losing the grant entirely, she would vote for
the full-size building at the Brookhurst site.
Councilman Roth indicated he felt that the community input was important and since
the people have spoken loud and clear, he would support the move of the proposed
community building to Brookhurst Park.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the location for the proposed community build~
lng be redesignated as Brookhurst Park and that the preliminary'design plans, preliminary
specifications and estimates of probable construction costs be approved for a building
of the size and scope originally planned, i.e., with a multi-purpose area to accommm-
date 1,000 persons. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. To this motion, Council-
man Thom voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Thom explained that his "No"vote reflects the fact that he was not convinced the
site of the building should be changed, that he still personally felt the appropriate
site should be Modjeska Park.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes (9:00 P. M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (9:10 P. M.)
* See Minutes of April 19, 1977, Page 77-
77-163
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222 East Chartres Street, Anaheim~ C~lifornia
COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977~ 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Thom recognized Mr. Martin Sklar, who wished to give additional input on the
connnunity building.
Mr. Martin Sklar, reprasenting the Anaheim City School District, reported.to the
Council that the Board had, by motion, unanimously endorsed the concept of community
buildings at park sites and urged the Council to take advantage of the unique oppor-
tunity through Federal funding to construct a community center; also that they support
the Parks and Recreation Commission's efforts to broaden recreational and cultural
opportunities in Anaheim.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT NO. 1410 - EXTENSION OF TIME:
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Se)~our, the request of .....
Daryl S. Crane, Administrator of Garden Park General Hospital, for a one-year'extension
of time to Reclassification No. 73-74-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1410 regarding
proposed CO zoned property at 950 South Gilbert Street was granted, retroactive to
August 7, 1976~ to expire August 7, 1977, as recommended by the City Planning Department.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar
Agenda:
!18: 1. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The folldwing claims were denied and referred to the
City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Robert A. Fisher and William B. and Ruby F. Booker for personal
injurie~ purportedly sustained as a result of lighting and lumination at the intersec-.
tion of Ball Road and Gilbert Street on or about January 26, 1976.
b. Claim submitted by Elsie Dumont for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a
result of dangerous and defective condition of public property on Harbor Boulevard,
south of Manchester Avenue on or about January 1, 1977.
c. Claim submitted by Opal Lang for property damages purportedly sustained as a re-
sult of loss of electricity caused by a fallen tree on or about November 27, 1976.
d. Claim submitted by Dorothy J. Bronson for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of stepping into an uncovered water meter at 1324 Sunshine Lane on or about
January 4, 1977.
e. Claim submitted by Michael C. Jones for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anaheim Police Officers on or about December 2, 1976.
f. Claim submitted by Manuel Silva for property damages purportedly sustained as
a result of a vehicle falling into a ditch in the 2900 block of West Lincoln on or
about January 6, 1977.
77-164
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222 East Chartres Street, Anaheim~ California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 8, ~77,.7:30 P.M.
g. Claim submitted by Allstate District Claim Office for property damages pur-
prtedly sustained as a result of electric service malfunction on or about Nov-
ember 27, 1976.
h. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damages purportedly sustai~ed
during the rebuilding of Nohl Ranch Road (Villa Real and Nohl Ranch Road) on or
about November 15, 1976.
2. 108:..~DI~N~.~.DANCING,PLACE. AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND PUBLIC DANCE PERMITS: The following
permits were approv'e~ 'in ~'ccor~ance with the rec°mmen~ations Of the Chief 'of Police:
a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit to allow dancing Tuesday through Sunday at the Royal
Archer, 815 South Brookhurst, from 9 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. (Gearil Lynn Hill, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permi~ to allow 9 pool tables, 1 juke box, !0 pinball machines
and 1 foosball table, at the Red Baron, 1211 South Western Avenue. (Gareth Clare Dart,
applicant)
c. Public Dance Permit for dance to be held February 27, 1977, 3 P.M. to 7 P.M. by
Sociedad Progresista Mexicana, No. 33, at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue.
(Concha C. Flores, applicant)
3. CORRESPONDENCE.: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. Federal Power Commission regarding Southern California Edison Company Docket
No. ER76-205, Presiding Administrative Law Judge's Scheduling Order
b. Community Center Authority - Minutes of January 17, 1977.
c. Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of. January 20, 1977.
d. Project Area Committee - Minutes of January 11, 1977.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-82 THROUGH 77R-84:. Councilwoman Kaywood offered ResolutionNos.
77R-82 through 77R-84, both inclusive, for adoption id accordance with the reports,
reconnnendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on
the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
15S: RESOLUTION NO. 77R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF.ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Park Meadows-Anaheim;
G.W.R. Properties, Inc.; H & H Development Co.; General American Life Insurance Co.;
Nick Pokrajac, Inc.; Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association; Lois J.
Weihs; Richard R. and Patricia A. Huish)
77-165
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222 East Chartres Street~. Anaheim~ California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ !977' 7:30 P.M.
KESOLUTION NO. 77R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES,
b~TERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES ~ND TRANSPORTATION INCLb~ING POWER, FUEL
AMD WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORti NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPRO~EbIENT, TO WIT: MANZANITA PARK FLOODLIGHTING I}~ROVEMENTS,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 794. (Held Electric, Inc.) ~
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES7
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
~YD WATER, AND THE PERFORM~NCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SCHWEITZER PARK DEVELOPMENT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 845. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Parking Lot)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M32~BERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
.None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-82 through 77R-84, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Con~ission at their meeting held January 17, 1977, pertaining to the following
applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
authorized the actions pertaining to the following environmental impact require-
ments as recommended by the City Planning Commission and took no further action
on the following applications (Items 1 through 9):
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DEC~RATION: The City Planning Commission
recommends to the City council that the subject projects in the following listed
zoning applications be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act:
Conditional Use Permit No. 1674 Variance No. 2896
Conditional Use Permit No. 1682 Variance No. ~897
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The Planning Director has
determined that the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applications
fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 or 3, of the City of Anaheim
Guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and are, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR:
Variance No. 2886 Variance No. 2894
Conditional Use Permit No. 1684
77-166
Chartres Recreation Center~. 222 East Chartres.Str.eet, Anaheim~ California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 8~ !977, 7:30 P.M.
3. VARIANCE NO. 2886: Submitted by James A. Crumm~ to construct a 2-story accessory
structure with kitchen facilities with code waivers on RS-7200 zoned property located
at 511 North Rose Street.
City Planning Commission'Resolution No. PC77-9 denied Variance No. 2886.
4. VARIA_NCE NO. 2894: Submitted by Claude L. and Nancy Brow~, to construct a
family-room additiOn with waiver of maximum lot coverage on RS-5000 zoned property'
located at 2513 Chain Avenue.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-16 granted Variance No. 2894.
5. VARIANCE NO. 2896: Submitted by B. Allen and Ethel Sumner, Meyer B, and Dorothy
M. Katz and Fiorence Royce, to construct a 7-unit, 2-story apartment complex with
certain code waivers on RM-1200 zoned property located on the west side of Bush Street
and north of Cypress Street.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-20 granted Variance No. 2896.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2897: Submitted by James L. Barisic and Lynn E. Thomsen, to estab-
lish two iots with waiver of minimum lot width on RM-2400 zoned property located at
1681 and 1683 Catalpa Drive.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-17 granted Variance No. 2897.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1674: Submitted by Leonard G. Muskin and Donald T.
Leahy, West America Construction Corooration, to permit a tour bus terminal on
CL zoned orooertY located at 2132 South Harbor Boulevard.
Conditional Use Permit No. 1674 was terminated by the City Planning Commission at the
request of the petitioner.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1682: Submitted by A. D. and J. A. Patel, to expand
an existing motel on CL zoned property located '~t 2123 West Lincoln Avenue.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-14 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1682.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1684: Submitted by Anaheim Insurance Leasco, ~o permit
boat sales with certain code waivers on CL zoned property located at 2165 South Man-
chester Avenue.
City Planning Resolution No. PC77-15 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1684 for a
period of 5 years.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1441 - EXTENSION OF TIME: (Removed from the foregoing
Consent Calendar for discussion at the request of the applicant) Submitted by
Reverend Richard Vallandigham, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. 1441 for a non-denominational church on CG zoned property located at 138 West
Lincoln Avenue.
77-167
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222. East Chartres Street~ Anaheim, California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977~ 7:30 P~M.
The Planning Con~ission, by motion, granted a 6 months~extension of time to expire
July 17, 1977.
Reverend Vallandigham originally was for a one year extension of time and this was
later changed to requeAt the three years on recommendation of City staff. He was
of the opinion that the City Planning Commission would have gone along with a one
year extension rather than the three years as shown on his application. He further
assured the Council that the church was making every effort to relocate as Of
December 31, 1977.
Followin~ brief discussion with Reverend Vallandigham, Council Members indicated
that while they were sympathetic to the situation, they felt the Planning Co~nission
had taken the safest course of action~ because of Redevelopment activities. They
advised the Reverend Vallandigham that they could not approve an extension of time
beyond July 17, ~977, for his current location without perhaps committing the Redevelop-
ment Agency to additional expenses in the form of relocation assistance if the Redevlop-
ment project was to the point where they need to acquire'hia'location between now and
December, 1977. Therefore, Councilman Seymour suggested that he direct a letter to
the Community Development Department in April or May to ascertain what the Redevelop-
ment project timing might be and then work out a flexible arrangement to utiliz~ the
property as long as possible with his landlord.
No action was taken by the City Council on the extension of time.
VARIANCE NO. 2899 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9684: Submitted by Anaheim Shores Associates
(Matreyek Homes, developer), for a 7-lot, 5-unit RM-2400 subdivision with certain
code waivers on property located on the north side of Falmouth Avenue and west of
Romneya~Drive.
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-12 recommended that subject project be
declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR and, further granted Variance
No. 2899.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded
by Councilman Roth, the citY Council finds that this project will have no significant
effect on the environment and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken by the City Council on Variance No. 2899.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 9684: Developer, Matr~eyek Homes; tract located on the north
side of Falmouth Avenue and west of Romneya Drive, containing 7 RM-2400 proposed
zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivision, .
Tentative Tract Map No. 9684, together with its design and improvement was found to
be consistent with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved said Tenta-
tive Map subject to the following conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission:
Chartres Recreation Cent. er, 222 East Chartres S~r.ee.t,. AnaheJ.m~. California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February .8.~ 1.9~7.~ ~:30 P.M.
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
2. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
3. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved
the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
4. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and
approved by the'City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract
map, and, furthermore, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall
-be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
5. That prior to 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, pro-
posed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and
buildings, and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the
City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project.
6. That street names shall be approved by the P~anning Department prior to approval
of the final tract map.
7. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease,---
or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject property, be
submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of
the Orange County Recorder.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appro-
priate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City
Council, said fees to be paid prior to approval of the final tract map, as stipulated
to by the petitioner.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's
standards for private streets.
10. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
11. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
12. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to
be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural
framing.
13. That Conditional Use Permit No. 1559 shall be terminated upon request by the
property owner prior to approval of the final tract map.
14. That approval of this tract is contingent upon approval of Variance No. 2899.
MOTION CARRIED.
77-169
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222 East Chartres Strget~ Anaheim~ California
COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~ 1977~ 7:30 .P.M.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9313 - SPECIFIC PLANS: (Reclassification No. 71-72-44(2) On
n~otion 'by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, specific plans submitted
by Robert P. Warmington Company in conjunction with a proposed RS-5000 (SC), 34-1ot
subdivision on property located south of Serrano Avenue, east of Nohl Ranch Road
were approved,~ as recommended by the Planning Department in memo dated January 28, 1977.
MOTI~ CARRIED. ,
170: FINAL btAM - TRACT NO. 9313: Developer, Robert P. Warmington Company; tract located
on the south side of Serrano Avenue, east of Nohl Ranch Road, containing 34 proposed
RS-5000 (SC) zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivision,
together with its design and improvement was found to be consistent with the City's
General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 9313 as recommended
by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 1, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, it was determined by the City Council that the
following grading permits are exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report as recommended by the City Planning Cemmission:
a) Grading Permit No. 607 for 120, 124, 128 and 130 Derby Circle, subject to compliance
with Area Development Plan No. 117.
b) Grading Permit No. 615 for 900 Convention Way.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3648: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3648 for adoption. Refer
to Ordinance Book.
OP~INANCE NO. 3648: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CItY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, C}LAPTER
14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NO PARKING ANY TIME.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3648 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3649: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3649 for adoption.
to Ordinance Book.
Refer
ORDINANCE NO. 3649: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
~WAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-11, RS-5000)
77-!70
Chartres Recreation. Ceq,ter~ 222 East,.,Chartres Street~,Anahei,m, California
COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar% 8,~,,19~7~ 7:30 P~M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS':
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3649 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3650: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3650 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDIN~N'CE NO. 3650: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-20, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3650 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3652 AND 3653:
for first reading.
Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3652 and 3653
ORDIN~MCE NO. 3652: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
18.02.050.015 PERTAINING TO CONFLICTS IN ZONING A2~D ADDING SECTION 8.20.030
PERTAINING TO CONFLICT~ IN WILD ANIMAL CONTROLS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3653: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE
~MAHEIM bf0-NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. ( 73-74-11, RS-7200)
MOTION REGARDING VARIANCE NO. 2856: Councilman Kott moved that the City Council
grant Mr. Herman Margulieux a waiver from performance of engineering requirements
in connection with Variance No. 2856. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Under discUssion, Councilman Kott stated that Mr. Margulieux has been in touch with
him personally regarding this problem; that apparently at the time he stipulated to
this particular condition he did not understand what it was he was agreeing to; that
the engineering requirements include removal or replacement of a drainage ditch and
pipe a[ an estimated cost of $38,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she felt this. to be highly improper, that Mr. Margulieux
should make his application for such a request in the appropriate manner.
Roll call vote on the foregoing motion:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Thom
Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
None
The foregoing motion failed to carry.
77-171
Chartres Recreation Center~ 222 East Chartres Street, Anahei.m~ Californ~.a
COUNCIL MINUTES - February 8~..1977~ 7:30 P.M.
ADJOUrnMENT: On motion by Councilman Thom seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
Anaheim City Council adjourned to Friday, February 11, 1977, at 3:00 P.M. MOTION
CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:40 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 11~ !977~. 3:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL M~BERS: None
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora Sohl
The Deputy City Clerk called the meeting to order and adjourned said meeting due to
a lack of quorum to the next regularly scheduled meeting, February 15, 1977, because
the need for said meeting was determined to be unnecessary.
Adjoarged: 3:01 P.M.
LiNDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK