1975/03/2575-251
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~. 1975~. 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
ASSOCIATE PLANNERS: Bill Young and G. Alan Daum
FIRE MARSHAL: B. C. Phillips
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 1:55 P.M., and welcomed
those in attendance to the Council meeting.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and unani-
mously approved by the City Council:
"Public School Month in the City of Anaheim" - Month of April.
Said proclamation was accepted by Mr. Ted Tugoud on behalf of the Anaheim
Masonic Lodge who thanked the Council and noted that the recognition of open
school has been extended to a month this year.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations unanimously
authorized by the Anaheim City Council was presented to Mr. Chet Drake by Mayor
Thom in recognition of his unhesitating acceptance of responsibilities of
citizenship on February 28, 1975 when he stopped to render invaluable first aid
to the victims of a 200-car accident on the Riverside Freeway.
RESOLUTION OF ACCOMMODATION: A Resolution of Accommodation unanimously adopted
by the City Council was authorized to be mailed to the Honorable Robert B.
Lyons, Mayor of the City of Placentia, de-annexing B J's Restaurant from the
City of Anaheim between the hours of 12:00 noon (PDT) and 12:00 midnight (PDT),
Saturday, April 19, 1975 for the purpose of accommodating the Placentia J. C.'s
who will be hosting the Junior Chamber of Commerce District Meeting.
MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings
held February 25, March 4, March 11, and March 18, 1975 was deferred to the
next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - 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 Sneegas seconded the
motion. CounCilman Sneega$ absent. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount of $509,453.45, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
RESULTS OF THE ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY MANAGEMENT AUDIT - RESEARCH AND BUDGET GROUP:
Mr. Jim LeSieur presented reports prepared by Arthur Young & Company on results
of the Management Audit of Research and Budget Group. He briefly outlined the
scope of their analysis of this division and described their findings. He
noted that the responsibilities and efforts of this division are directed in
three primary activities, budget preparation, research activities, and project
coordination.
Mr. LeSieur stressed that Arthur Young & Company believes the budget pre-
paration, research, and project coordination activities performed by this divi-
sion are important to the City management. He reviewed each of these functions
as carried on by the division in some detail as described in the report.
75-252
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. LeSieur reported the following recommendations, which upon implementa-
tion would reduce the City's expenditures by $73,000 per year:
1. That the Budget Coordinator position be expanded to include formal
periodic expenditure analysis, a year-end budget performance analysis on a
City-wide basis; long-range revenue expenditure and capital outlay forecasts.
To implement this recommendation, the transfer of one Administrative Analyst to
the Finance Department is recommended.
2. That the various clerical tasks now performed by Analysts be trans-
ferred to the different departments with regard to budget preparations and in
this connection, that the various departments use the check list already pre-
pared by Research and Budget Group.
3. That substantive research studies be assigned to the City Manager's
Office or to departments as appropriate. There may be certain areas in which
the City will have to hire a consultant, but these can be reviewed and deter-
mined on a cost-justified basis.
4. Centralization of the project coordination function to the City Man-
ager's Office under the direction of the Administrative Assistant and further
that responsibility for coordination be delegated throughout the City organiza-
tion as appropriate.
5. They recommend and wholeheartedly support continuation of the Intern
Program which should be transferred to the City Manager's Office under the direc-
tion of the Administrative Assistant and increased efforts be made to insure
that these interns receive the necessary exposure to overall City operations.
Mr. LeSieur concluded that these recommendations would result in more
effective utilization of available resources to effect cost savings. To imple-
ment the above listed recommendations, they recommend the transfer of one
Administrative Analyst to the Finance Department and the elimination of the one
Senior Administrative Analyst and two Administrative Analyst positions, as well
as the Administrative Aide position funded under the PEP Program and the one
Intermediate Typist Clerk position.
The Mayor called for questions and/or comments from the Council and staff.
In reply to Mr. Murdoch, Mr. LeSieur clarified that it is not recommended
that the PEP position be eliminated until June of 1975 when the funds run out
and that it would be wise to have the Research and Budget Group bring current
activities to completion.
Councilman Sneegas referred to the recommendation regarding monthly report-
ing of expenditures and comparision of these against budgeted amounts and
stated that he thought this was the purpose and function of the computer print
outs which come to Council each month.
Mr. Murdoch stated that this is one of the differences between the Arthur
Young approach and opinion on what a formal reporting system is and is not. He
pointed out that the difference is that the expenditure sheets which the Council
currently receives report strictly on a dollar basis and do not identify pro-
gress on various budget activities.
Mr. LeSieur further pointed out that the City's budget is drawn up on an
annual basis and in some cases these amounts may or may not be divided by 12
which could be misleading. It is their recommendation that this type of report-
ing be expanded to include evaluation of programs and financial analysis with
procedures to do this on a regular basis.
Councilman Thom moved that the report be accepted as submitted and that
the City Manager be requested to implement the recommendations and report back
on the implementation procedure in 60 days.
Mr. Murdoch requested that he be allowed the latitude of not establishing
a particular date for implementation at the present time since some analysis o~
the various employees involved is necessary in order to provide transfer and
position application rights in accordance with rules and regulations for per-
sonnel operation. He noted that the Senior Analyst position has not been
filled since the retirement of the former Senior Analyst on his own recom-
mendation. He noted that the PEP employee may be transferred into some other
~art of the C.E.T.A. Program.
75-253
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March ZS~ 1975, 1:30 F.M.
Councilman Thom amended his motion to accept the report from Arthur Young
& Company on results of the Management Audit of the Research and Budget Group
and instruct the City Manager to prepare a method to implement the recommenda-
tions therein and report back when this procedure is ready. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
POLICY DIRECTIVE - SCOPE OF PERSONNEL SERVICES: Mayor Thom referred to the
discussion held at the Council meeting of March 11, 1975 following the presenta-
tion of the Arthur Young & Company report on the Management Audit of the Per-
sonnel Department and specifically to the recommendation made that the City
Council, City Manager and Personnel Director confer together to define the
scope of the services expected of the Personnel Department and that the Per-
sonnel Director prepare this policy directive for consideration. Mayor Thom
stated that he felt the Council, City Manager, and Personnel Director should
accomplish this as the first order of business and then move on into the area
of how the job classification and wage survey should be conducted. He further
requested that the City Manager's Office solicit from each of the employee
organizations any comments they might have as to this policy directive and also
on the overall Arthur Young & Company report and invite their participation.
Mr. Murdoch stated that he thought the employee organizations were con-
tacted by Arthur Young & Company and their comments included in the report, to
which Mayor Thom advised that subsequently~ he has learned this was not the
case, that these organizations were not formally contacted for input.
Mr. LeSieur stated that because of budgetary considerations, the original
work engagement plan did not include discussion with employee associations.
Councilman Sneegas voiced his amazement that the entire report prepared by
Arthur Young & Company on the Personnel Department was put together without any
consultation whatsoever from the employee organizations, and Councilman Pebley
concurred.
Mayor Thom stated that this is the reason he is now requesting their com-
ments and stressed that he is concerned that the Council be extremely careful
prior to engaging any consultant for job classification audit and salary review,
that it be certain of exactly the scope necessary in this study. He stressed
that this meeting be held as soon as possible so as to initiate activities with
hopefully a completed classification and wage review in time for the October
salary negotiations.
Following brief discussion, it was mutually agreed by Council, Personnel
Director, City Manager, and Mr. O'Malley of the Anaheim Municipal Employees
Association that this meeting be held on Wednesday, April 9, 1975 at 10:00
a.m., although it was pointed out that this date might not be soon enough to
start the classification and wage study in motion in time for a September
termination. It was further determined that perhaps an Executive Session could
be held to discuss the job classification and wage study during the April 1,
1975 Council meeting.
Later in the meeting, following further discussion, the date and time of
the meeting to establish policy directive and receive input from the employee
associations were changed, by mutual consent, to Tuesday, April 1, 1975 at 9:00
a.m.
PROPOSED FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AUDIT - ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY -
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL AND ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSES: Mayor Thom noted that over the
past several months the potential leasing of management of the golf courses has
been a subject of much discussion, and it seems to be the consensus of opinion
that the information provided so far is not sufficient upon which to base any
decision. He reported that what has been discussed by the Audit Steering Com-
mittee, and he also understands by the Chamber of Commerce, is the concept that
Arthur Young & Company present a work proposal for Financial and Management
Practices Audit of the golf course operations of the Parks, Recreation and the
Arts Department. He related that this City function was withheld from the task
Arthur Young & Company was requested to perform because it seemed imminent that
the City was going to a management contract for these operations. Since it now
appears as though the City Council may not be headed in that direction,
75-254
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975; 1;30 P.M,
Councilman Thom moved that the Arthur Young & Company be requested to prepare a
work proposal for Financial and Management Practices Audit of the Anaheim
Municipal and Anaheim Hills Golf Courses. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
In reply to Councilman Pebley, Mayor Thom indicated he was not at this
time aware as to what the cost of these additional audits would be, but that
they would be included within the perimeters of the $292,000 already designated
for this purpose.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND
DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES: To consider amendment to Title 17 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 17.06, Grading, Excavations and Fills in Hillside
Areas.
Also submitted was report from the Director of Development Services Depart-
ment indicating that at their meeting of February 19, 1975, the City Planning
Commission took action to recommend adoption of the proposed Hillside Grading
Ordinance, grading standards, and Council policy as recommended by the Canyon
Area General Planning Task Force.
Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Supervisor, briefly recapitulated the extensive
discussions and meetings held relative to revising the Grading Ordinance with
input from concerned citizens, staff, Council, Planning Commission and developers.
Mayor Thom called for questions from Council Members relative to the
proposed revision of the Grading Ordinance and the policy on hillside grading,
and there were no Council questions.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Council
regarding either of these matters.
Mr'. John Millick, Vice President, Anaheim Hills, Inc., member of the
Canyon Area General Planning Task Force stated that both the Task Force and the
Planning Commission have been working on the details of this ordinance for
months. It is now recommended for adoption by the Task Force in the form also
recommended by the Planning Commission. He offered to answer any questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out for clarification to those present who
might not be familiar with the Task Force that this group is made up of two
members of the City Council, two members of the Planning Commission, five
developers and five homeowners' groups representatives. The Canyon Area General
Planning Task Force has been meeting for 22 weeks and have ironed out a number
of important details.
City Attorney Alan Watts advised that in reviewing this proposed ordinance,
he came across a technical correction, in Section 17.06.150 on Page No. 23.
This section instructs that the manner for appeal from notice issued by the
City Engineer as described in Section 17.04.160 should be amended to refer to
Section 17.06.281 which is the appeal section built into this chapter.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in
favor or in opposition; there being no response, he declared the hearing closed.
COUNCIL POLICY NO. 211 - HILLSIDE GRADING: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the following was adopted as Council Policy No.
211:
TRANSITIONAL AREAS
It is the policy of the City Council that "Transitional Areas" be required
between existing developed areas and "Hillside Grading". It is the intent that
a transitional area be provided of a nature that will maintain and protect the
desirable natural existing amenities of adjacent developed property. The scope
and extent of the transitional area required will be determined by individual
review by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
75-255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Mmrch ZS, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
The Council encourages that persons that propose to perform "Hillside
Grading" participate in meaningful dialogue with adjacent citizens in developed
areas to create a "spirit of understanding" and a shared concern that the
environment will be protected and improved to the fullest extent practicable.
CONTOUR GRADING
It is the policy of the City Council to encourage contour grading to be
performed by persons engaged in Hillside Grading. In keeping with needs to
create an environmental community life that provides aesthetic scenic amenities
that enhance human sensitivities by visually harmonious hillsides, contour
grading shall be required except where determined to be impracticable by the
City Engineer.
HILLSIDE GRADING STANDARDS FOR
CONTOUR GRADING
I. Policy Statements
1. It shall be the policy of the City of Anaheim to encourage the use of
imaginative grading techniques to improve the appearance of developments in
hillside areas in general and in particular slope banks.
2. Linear slope banks, either cut or fill, are to be avoided.
3. Cut and fill slopes in excess of 200 feet in length shall have curved
linear configurations where consistent With the recommendations of the soil
engineer, engineering geologist and City Engineer.
4. Where consistent with the recommendations of the soil engineer,
engineering geologist and the City Engineer, a variety of slope ratios (for
example: 1.75:1, 1.9:1, 2:1, 2.5:1, 3:1, etc.) shall be applied to any cut or
fill slope in excess of 200 feet in length. The steepest permissible slope
ratio shall be 1.5:1.
5. Where the slope configuration is controlled by the design of an arterial
highway, slope banks in excess of 25 feet in height adjacent to and projecting
above the roadway shall be screened by the use of planting bays at the toe of
slope and adjacent to the road right of way. A variety of slope ratios and
horizontal radii shall be used to blend into the adjoining slopes.
6. A variety of slope ratios and horizontal radii shall be used to blend
manufactured slopes into the adjoining natural terrain in order to provide
adequate transition and avoid abrupt changes between manufactured and natural
slope banks.
II. Design Criteria
1. Curved Linear Slopes. Where a cut or fill slope exceeds 200 feet in
horizontal length, the toe and/or top of the slope shall be curved in a convex
and concave manner to provide a variety of slope ratios. The radius at the toe
of slope shall be no greater than 300 feet.
2. Transition with Natural Slopes. At the intersection of a manufactured
cut or fill slope and a natural slope, a gradual transition or rounding of
contours shall be provided with a minimum radius of 50 feet. Manufactured
slope banks intersecting at or near right angles shall be rounded with a radius
at the building pad of no less than 25 feet.
3. Varying Slope Ratios. Wq~ere a manufactured cut or fill slope inter-
sects with a natural slope, the manufactured slope approaching the natural
slope shall utilize as nearly as possible the same ratio as the natural slope,
bUt not steeper than 1.5:1. Where manufactured slope banks approach roadways
at or near right angles above the elevation of the roadway, the slope shall be
flattened at the point of intersection to a slope ratio o{ 3:1 or flatter. The
corner of manufactured slope banks at street intersections shall be graded with
a slope ratio of 3:1 or flatter through the curb returns.
4. Planting Bays. Manufactured slope banks along arterial highways pro-
jecting above the roadway and exceeding 25 feet in height and 200 feet in
length shall be screened through the construction of planting-bays along the
toe of the slope. Dimensions for these planting bays shall be as follows:
75-256
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1975~ 1'30 P.M.
Slope Height:
Bay Width:
Minimum Length:
Maximum Spacing:
Slope Height:
Bay Width:
Minimum Length:
Maximum Spacing:
25 to 50 feet
10 feet
100 feet
250 feet between openings
over 50 feet
15 feet
100 feet
250 feet between openings
Planting bays shall further be contour graded and planted with specimen
size trees. The sidewalk in these areas may be placed away from the curb line
to meander through the landscaped bay area.
REF:HILL,51DE GRADING ORD. SEC. 17.06.132 .lff,vt~dlj~y
¢l'rY OF GRADIHC, & PL. AN'TI~G
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BAY FOR UPHILL CONDITION3
ENGINEERING DIVISION ALONG ARTERIAL ,.STREET5 ONLY
75-257
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
i ~1 i II I III I III I
-~_.L~ OPE
u,~ SLOPE VARIABLE
~ / RAT IO'~
' 3lOPe ~
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKO
ENGINEERING DIVISION
NOTE:
SLOPE RATIOS SHALL
VARY SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL. BY THE CITY
ENGINEER.
! i
CURVED LINEAR SLOPES
FOR 3LOPES EXCEEDING 200' IN LEHGTH
"~- NATURAL
SLOPE ~..
: "x
~TRANSl T ION ZONE
· '~, ~ ~ VARIABLE SLOPE RATIO
[ ~ ,//~ NOT STEEPER THAN
k I, fX
CITY
OF
ANAHEIM INTERSECTION ~ MANUFACTURED
DE~TMENTENGiNEERINGOF PUBL~DiViStONWO~K~ 3LOPE WITH NATURAL 5LOPE
i ~ ii ~i i
75-258
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25; 1975~ 1;30
L' i IIII I ~_
p£VARIABL.£ RATIO ~-~'~.~j
__ B'G.R.__
'"~ ~,: I OR ~
,SLOPE RATIO~.,L j
_
CITY OF ANAHEIM
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
iii ii i i
,11 i
, , IRaviled i Bv
SLOPES APPROACHING PUBLIC
OR PRIVATE STREETS
TOP OF SLOPE-.-%
TOE OF 5LOPE/ .
i iiiii i i1,11
I
I
NOT ALLOWED
DOWNHILL
TOE OF SLOp..E..,~
UPHILL
CITY OF ANAHEIM J
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
I
GRADING OF INTERSECTING SLOPES
Il --- ii,
Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
75-259
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~..1975.~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3411: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3411 for first
reading as recommended by the City Planning Commission and the Canyon Area
General Planning Task Force, with the technical correction noted by the City
Attorney.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 17, C~IAPTER 17.06 AND
ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.06 RELATING TO HILLSIDE GRADING.
PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 13§~ RBCLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-23~
VARIANCE NO. 2670 AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-24 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NOS. 141 AND 142: These petitions were considered concurrently since they
all relate to property located in the same general area bounded by Romneya
Drive, State College Boulevard, La Palma Avenue and Acacia Streeet.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 138: To consider amending the Anaheim General Plan
relating to the area generally bounded by Romneya Drive, State College Boulevard,
La Palma Avenue and Acacia Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-33 recom-
mended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 138 in accordance with Exhibit
IIcll®
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-23 AND VARIANCE NO. 2670: Application by George J.
Heltzer Company for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-4000 and the follow-
ing Code waivers to construct a 250-unit condominium development between Romneya
Drive and La Palma Avenue and west of State College Boulevard was submitted,
together with E.I.R. No. 141 and addendum thereto:
a. Maximum building height.
b. Minimum front setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-34 recom-
mended 'that E.I.R. No. 141 and addendum thereto be certified as in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and further recommended that the
City Council approve Reclassification No. 74-75-23 subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim
a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along La Palma
Avenue; a strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street
along Romneya Drive; a strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of
the street along Baxter Street from Romneya Drive to the south property line of
Edison Park, and a strip of land 64 feet in width from the south property line
of Edison Park to La Palma Avenue.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along La
Palma Avenue, Romneya Drive and Baxter Street, including preparation of improve-
ment plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant
work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance
with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City
Engineer; that street lighting facilities along La Palma Avenue, Romneya Drive
and Baxter Street shall be installed as required by the Director of Public
Utilities and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in
the office of the Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount
and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of 60¢ per front foot along La Palma Avenue, Romneya Drive and Baxter
Street for tree planting purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to com-
mencement of structural framing.
6. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from.
view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That the petitioner shall construct drainage facilities in La Palma
Avenue between State College Boulevard and Acacia Street in accordance with the
City of Anaheim's Master Plan for Drainage and as approved by the City Engineer.
75-260
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March, 2,5~,, !,9.7.5,~ 1:30 P..M.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued; however, if the City Council determines that dedication of acreage for
park purposes is more desirable than payment of the in-lieu fees~ an appropriate
condition to reflect said determination shall be applicable.
10. That a tentative and final tract map of subject property shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and then
be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
11. That the property owner(s) shall install traffic signals at the inter-
section of La Palma Avenue and Baxter Street, as approved by the City Engineer.
12. That a six-foot masonry wail shall be constructed along the west
property line of the southwesterly portion of the property and along the east
property line, and also along the north and west property lines adjacent to
Edison Park if determined to be necessary by the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
13. That final specific plans to include a precise site plan, floor plans,
and elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council
for approval.
14. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, and 13, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one
year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
15. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning'inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-35, recom-
mended certification of E.I.R. No. 141 together with addendum and granted
Variance No. 2670 in part only, granting waiver "a" with respect to adjacent
RS-A-43,000 zoned property only and denying waiver "b", subject to the following
condition:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassifica-
tion No. 74-75-23, now pending.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-24: Application by George J. Heltzer Company for a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL on property located north of the northwest
corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard, was submitted together
with E.I.R. No. 142.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-41, recom-
mended that the City Council certify E.I.R. No. 142 as being in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and further recommended approval of
Reclassification No. 74-75-24, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim
a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along
La Palma Avenue for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along
La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard including preparation of improve-
ment plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant
work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance
with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer;
that street lighting facilities along La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard
shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in
accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the
Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory
to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation
of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of 60¢ per front foot along La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard
for tree planting purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approve~t
plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
75-261
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to com-
mencement of structural framing.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed o£ in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
8. That a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north
and west property lines.
9. That subject property shall be developed precisely in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1, 2 and 5 (Revision No. 1), and 3 and 4, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions
or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of
the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from
the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
11. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The Deputy City Clerk submitted a letter in opposition received from Mark
A. Smith, Attorney on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Richter and letters indicating
concern regarding drainage and in relation to expansion of Edison Park and the
extension of Baxter Street from Mr. Charles Greenwood, Mr. Donald Berryman,
Chairman of the Thomas Edison Advisory Council, and Mrs. Asa Sharpies, P.T.A.
President, Thomas Edison School.
Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Supervisor, reported that recent changes in
school district proposals have rendered subject property available for other
than school use. A development proposal was received for a specific kind of
land use on the property which prompted the preparation of the six exhibits,
"A" through "F" which were posted on the wall in the Council Chamber.
Mr. Bill Young, Associate Planner, described each of the Area Development
Plan exhibits marked "A" through "F". He indicated that Exhibit "C", which was
recommended for adoption by the City Planning Commission, as prepared by staff
reflects the land uses requested by the applicant in Reclassification Nos.
74-75-23 and 74-75-24, i.e., a community shopping center adjacent to State
College Boulevard frontage extending southerly to La Palma Avenue; low-medium
density residential land uses for the remainder of the available property.
This exhibit also reflects the extension of Baxter Street as a north-south
dedicated collector street between Romneya Drive and La Palma Avenue. This
plan does not indicate expansion of Edison Park.
Mr. Young reported that the designation of medium density residential land
uses can be implemented by three zones in the City of Anaheim, the RS-5000,
RM-4000 and RM-2400 Zones. This particular applicant is proposing a condominium
project for subject area and has applied for RM-4000 zoning.
Mr. Young advised that at the Planning Commission hearing on February 3,
1975, there was still some confusion as to Council's intent on the acquisition
of a smaller amount of land for expansion of the park site and also as to
whether or not they intended Baxter Street to be a public or a private street
and clarification was requested. Subsequently, Council reviewed the Planning
Commission recommendations at their February 11, 1975 meeting and reiterated
that due to budgetary limitations the feeling of the Council majority was that
Edison Park would not be expanded, but that they would prefer that Baxter
Street be extended as a public street.
Mr. Young advised that the Planning Commission ultimately recommended
adoption of Exhibit "C" and that part of the reasoning in this recommendation
was that a majority of the area is proposed for a low-medium density residential
type of land use which would provide its own recreational facilities and,
therefore, would not place an increased demand on the Edison Park facility.
Mr. Roberts advised that in looking at the individual proposals for the
area, it would be divided into two independent projects, the westerly 33-acre
portion proposed for an RM-4000 condominium project (Reclassification No.
74-75-23, Variance No. 2670) and a 7-acre parcel located adjacent to State
College Boulevard proposed for a commercial shopping center (Reclassification
No. 74-75-24).
75-262
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1975., 1:30 P.M.
In connection with the condominium project, Mr. Roberts related that a
total of 252 dwelling units are proposed with a net density of 9.6 units per
acre. He explained that the plan submitted in conjunction with th:is petition
is only a concept plan, and no specific development plan has been prepared so
that there are no dimensions, floor plans or elevations to consider at this
time. If this reclassification is approved, then the applicant would be required
to submit tentative tract maps and specific plans for individual units. He
reviewed the requested waivers. He noted that Condition No. 9 as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC75-34 takes into account the fact that the
Council may find it more desirable to acquire additional acreage immediately
adjacent to Edison Park rather than to collect the park in-lieu fees, should
Council wish to consider expanding this condition.
Mr. Roberts described the shopping center project briefly which is proposed
to contain a major food market, a number of retail shops and a restaurant on
the State College frontage. Vehicular access is proposed to be provided by
three driveways on State College Boulevard, one at the north end of the property,
one midway in the frontage, and a third which was added subsequent to the
Planning Commission's original recommendation. This third access drive is
proposed for right-turn out movements only and has been reviewed by the City
Planning Commission subsequent to their original consideration and they concur
with it. Further access to the property would include two driveways on La Palma
Avenue, one at the westerly extremity of the property and the other one immedi-
ately west of an existing service station on the corner.
Mr. Roberts related that the project design conforms in every respect to
site development standards of the CL Zone. The plans indicate a 20-foot wide
landscaped buffer strip on the westerly boundary to act as a buffer zone between
this project and the proposed residential development to the west. The land-
scaped buffer has also been incorporated into the northerly boundary of the
property to provide protection for the existing multiple-family residential
uses.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Roberts reported that the driveway
intended for right-turn out only traffic is designed with extended curbs far
enough to direct the vehicle into the southbound direction and would render it
impossible to make a left turn from that drive. He reported that the Traffic
Engineer has reviewed the proposal for this third driveway and concurs that
such a design would be feasible.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent were present and satisfied
with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Cal Queyrel of Anacal Engineering, representing Mr. Heltzer and
Mr. Bill Reinhardt of Newport Beach Development Corporation indicated agreement
with the City Planning Commission recommendations and urged that the Council
adopt General Plan Amendment No. 138 in accordance with Exhibit "C" as this
would implement development of the property in the manner they propose.
Regarding the drainage requirement, Mr. Queyrel indicated that Mr. Heltzer
wishes to go on record that the cost of building a major storm drain facility
is excessive and unfair in the development of his 40 acres, his property being
the last to develop in that area. He feels there should have been a district
set up so that everyone would have paid their fair share of the cost.
Mr. Bill Reinhardt, President, Newport Beach Development Corporation,
advised that his firm specializes in shopping center development; that they
have tried to comply with every requirement of the City's Zoning Code. They
concur with the conditions, however, would suggest that the 20-foot landscaped
buffer zone required on the westerly boundary would be more beneficial to the
general aesthetics of the project if it were moved to the State College Boulevard
frontage which would still leave a 10-foot landscaped strip and block wall on
the westerly boundary. He further noted, in reply to Councilwoman Kaywood,
that the property owner intends to also place a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer
on his easterly property line abutting the commercial development, which would,
including driveways and streets mean a total of 50 to 75 feet would separate
the first residential building from the commercial activities.
75-263
C_ity Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March Z.5m 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in favor
or in opposition to the proposed project.
Mr. Don Berryman, 1316 East Belmont Avenue, Chairman of the Edison School
Parent Advisory Council indicated he was representing the P.T.A. and other
youth groups from the neighborhood who are all vitally interested in development
of this property and, in particular, are concerned that the development may
overtax their neighborhood park and elementary and junior high schools. They
would like very much to see the City Council acquire as much~more land as
possible for expansion of Edison Park. He cited that Edison Park currently
serves 11,500, and based on the City's park ratio of 1½ acres per 1,000 popula-
tion, the approval of the proposed project would create a park deficiency of
9.75 acres in this service area. He noted that expansion of Edison Park was
recommended by the Citizens Capital Improvement Committee and the deficiency
also acknowledged by the Parks and Recreation Commission in their recommendation
to the City Council from meetings of December 18, 1973 and January 2, 1974,
that the Council purchase a portion of the property when declared surplus by
the High School District to expand Edison Park.
In conclusion, Mr. Berryman stressed once this particular property is
approved for development, there are no further opportunities for acquisition of
park land and no alternative park sites within their service area. He submitted
a petition to Council purportedly containing 1,250 signatures of residents
asking the City Council to expand Edison Park.
Mr. Mark A. Smith, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Richter,
presented highlights from his documents which he had prepared and submitted
with transmittal letter dated March 14, 1975, to the Council Members prior to
this meeting. (These are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are
hereafter incorporated into the record).
Mr. Smith stated that his client, who are the recorded owners of the
GranadaSquare Shopping Center located directly across the street from the
commercial development proposed in Reclassification No. 74-75-g4 oppose General
Plan Amendment No. 138 primarily basing this opposition on the inadequacy of
Environmental Impact Report No. 142, submitted in conjunction with Reclassifica-
tion No. 74-75-24.
Mr. Smith recited from his material presented the various requirements for
an environmental impact report as set forth in Public Resources Code Sections
21061, 21100, 21001, and 21155. Specifically, he contended that E.I.R. No. 142
does not meet the legal requirements for an environmental impact report, having
failed to comprehensively consider and report the following:
1. Economic and fiscal factors.
2. Alternative to the proposed project, especially in light of the
economics.
3. The growth inducing impact of the proposed project, especially on
services provided by the City.
4. Long-term effects and costs.
5. Social factors.
6. Noise and air quality.
Mr. Smith emphasized the effect of the proposed commercial development on
the existing small, locally owned stores. Further he pointed out that the pro-
posed commercial development is not consistent with the existing General Plan
and requires an amendment to same, whereas the owners of the Granada Square
Shopping Center have made plans and obtained a building permit for enlargement
and improvement of the Granada Square, which he contended is in keeping with the
Anaheim General Plan adopted policy of improving existing commercial developments.
Mr. Smith further related that this proposed new commercial development
will be constructed on 7½ acres and contemplates 190,000 square £eet o£ building,
whereas Granada Square is built on 10 acres of property and has 170,000 square
feet of building spate and there is no excess parking, the point being that
Granada Square using all existing parking, which is more than is being made
available in the new development, has just a sufficient amount. He pointed out
that this was not covered adequately in the E.I.R. In conclusion, Mr. Smith
75-264
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25.~ 1975; 1:30 P.M.
emphasized the fact that an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan is necessary
to accommodate this commercial proposal is significant and that case law cites
that the City's adopted general plan should take precedence.
Mayor Thom inquired if Mr. Smith had presented his packet of information
to the Flanning Commission prior to their consideration of the E.I.R., to which
Mr. Smith replied that he did present a portion of this material relating to
the General Flan Amendment and requested that the Planning Commission hold the
matter over to receive the E.I.R. information and comments. Both of his requests
were denied.
In answer to Mayor Thom's request for comments on Mr. Smith's allegations
relative to Environmental Impact Report No. 142, Mr. Don McDaniel reported that
the E.I.R. Review Committee met in January and discussed this particular E.I.R.,
and at that time recommended that several areas of this report be corrected and
revised. These corrections were made and the report resubmitted at which time
it was recommended to be certified as in compliance with City and State Guide-
lines. He noted that some of the concerns addressed by Mr. Smith are indicated
in this E.I.R., which is the purpose of the report, to identify these environ-
mental concerns, but not necessarily solve them.
City Attorney Watts reported that he had not reviewed Mr. Smith's documenta-
tion~ however from the highlights presented~ it appears that Mr. Smith contends
the E.I.R. should consider or contain information on the economic impact of one
development on those which surround it and more specifically the impact of the
proposed shopping center on the Granada Square Center. Mr. Watts reported
that he does not share the opinion that this type of information or analysis is
required and neither apparently, do some members of the State Legislature.
There is, however, legislation pending which would accomplish exactly what Mr.
Smith contends should be done. Consequently, there is sufficient question of
legislative intent on this point.
Mr. Smith stated that he is not concerned merely with the impact of this
commercial development on Granada Square, but more specifically with the impact
on the people in the City of Anaheim, i.e., the surrounding homeowners and
owners of the satellite stores.
Councilman Pebley commented that the way he interprets Mr. Smith's state-
ments is that it sounds as though Mr. Smith would desire that the Council not
permit any further commercial competition in the area. Councilman Pebley
stated that this is not in keeping with his own philosophy, and that he further
felt it would not be appropriate for the City Council to consider the competitive
impact of one project upon another.
Mr. Smith stated that the point he is attempting to make is that the pro-
posed commercial development is not an appropriate land use and that the E.I.R.
did not fully explore alternative uses for the property.
Further discussion ensued regarding the philosophy in preparing and requir-
ing environmental impact reports during which Councilman Pebley noted that
Mr. Smith has already indicated there is just sufficient parking at the Granada
Square Shopping Center, but that they plan an expansion of the food market and
also to establish a banking facility. Councilman Sneegas pointed out that the
fallacy of the situation is that the owner of the existing shopping center
would not be required to prepare an environmental impact report in connection
with his additional construction.
Councilman Sneegas further commented that the building permit for expansion
of the existing Market Basket store in the Granada Square Center was taken out
in August of 1974 and no construction activity has yet taken place. Further
that this is approximately the time that subject property became available for
sale, which makes him doubt the motivation behind the building permit. He
advised that he feels each individual should have the opportunity to develop
their land to the highest and best use and competition will take care of itself,
and that with this philosophy all will come out to be in the best interest of
the consumer. He advised Mr. Smith that this is the only way he can view the
protest which he has presented.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council relative to
the items under consideration.
75-~5
City Hall.~ Anaheim~..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25,. ~97.5~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Robert Linn voiced his opposition to General Plan Amendment No. 138,
Exhibit "C". He indicated that the original plan was that this property be
developed into a high school which would have sports facilities and a swimming
pool which the nearby residents could have used. The population density in the
area has increased to the point where there is a need for expansion of Edison
Park and, therefore, he would oppose Exhibit "C" since it does not provide for
expansion of the park.
Mr. Charles Greenwood, 17842 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, spoke only in
reference to the surface water drainage problem, indicating he took no position
on the project itself. He related that he owns apartment units on La Palma
Avenue which were flooded twice during the past winter, sustaining $5,000 worth
of damage. He stated that when this project is built, if appropriate action is
not taken to handle the additional run-off water, this problem will only become
worse. He urged that the Council implement the flood control program planned
for this area if the project is approved.
Mr. William Devitt, Assistant City Engineer, attested to the fact that
Mr. Greenwood's property was indeed flooded as he stated. He brought to
Council's attention the fact that it is the recommendation of the City Engineer's
Office that the developer of subject property be required to install the neces-
sary drainage facilities in La Palma Avenue from State College Boulevard to
Acacia Street. The City Engineer's Office has submitted in their proposed
1975-76 Budget an appropriation for construction of the storm drain facility in
La Palma Avenue from Acacia Street to the retarding basin on East Street.
Councilman Sneegas asked if this proposed storm drain construction would
be necessary whether or not the proposed project is approved, to which Mr. Devitt
replied affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council in opposition;
there being no response, he offered the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Cal Queyrel stated that the schools for this subject area have addi-
tional capacity; that if subject property were developed in the RS-5000 Zone,
this would generate approximately the same school population; that the proposed
condominium development will create less demand on the existing park facilities
because it will contain its own recreational amenities including swimming
pools; that if land dedication is substituted for park in-lieu fees the amount
of land provided would be a strip approximately 35 feet by 600 feet. He stated
that they will extend Baxter Street southerly to La Palma Avenue. He indicated
he had no comments in rebuttal to Mr. Smith's remarks on the commercial develop-
ment, but that he does object to the tactic of stating objections to an E.I.R.
for reasons other than its contents.
Mr. Reinhardt advised that a considerable amount of market research is
performed prior to the decision to develop a shopping center and the studies
performed relative to this site confirm that it is warranted for this type
development. He related some of the tenants actually signed and those in
negotiations at this time for space in this proposed center.
Mayor Thom declared the public hearing on Reclassification No. 74-75-23,
Variance No. 2670 and Reclassification No. 74-75-24 closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Queyrel whether they intend Baxter Street
to be a public street, and he replied affirmatively. She inquired as to their
plans for drainage, and Mr. Queyrel advised that these facilities have not yet
been designed since there is no precise development plan, but will be proposed
when the specific plans are drawn.
Council discussion ensued during which the members expressed concern over
how this residential project would impact Edison Park which is already insuffi-
cient for the service area. It was stressed that they felt adequate recreational
provisions should be made in the proposed condominium complex. Relative to
this matter, Mr. Roberts pointed out that in the RM-4000 Zone the developer
would be required to provide a minimum of 1,200 square feet of usable open
space per dwelling unit within his development, but this includes the patio
areas.
75-266
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1;30
Further, for Council information Mr. Roberts noted that subdivision regulations
contain a basic requirement on dedication of land or park in-lieu fees, granting
the City Council the authority to determine which should be accepted. Further
the subdivision regulations contain a formula of 156.8 square feet per dwelling
unit for figuring the square footage amount of land to be dedicated, which would
amount in this case to approximately 39,000 square feet, or just under one acre.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the cost to acquire additional land
for expansion of Edison Park, which at this time has been quoted at $87,000 per
acre, is prohibitive. This reinforces her opinion that park land should be
purchased when it is needed and available. Although she further recognized that
at the time this property was offered to the City for purchase no funds were
available and there were park sites outstanding which had not yet been developed.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Sneegas brought up the matter
of the recommendation made by Mr. Reinhardt at the beginning of the public hear-
ing that it would be beneficial to the overall aesthetics of the shopping center
if 10 feet of the proposed 20-foot landscaped area on the westerly boundary were
moved and added to the front setback which would then be a 30-foot setback.
At the request of the City Council, Mr. George G. Heltzer, 740 North La Brea,
Los Angeles, owner of the property stipulated that the plans for the condominium
project would include a lO-foot planted area along its entire easterly boundary,
which abuts the commercial project so that there would be a buffer zone consist-
ing of a block wall with two lO-foot landscaped areas on either side; and that
10 feet would be added to the State College Boulevard frontage providing for a
30-foot setback along the commercial project.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-138: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-138 for
adoption, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 138 in accordance with Exhibit
"C", as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 138, EXHIBIT "C".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-138 duly passed and adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 141 - CERTIFICATION: On motion by Councilman
Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, E.I.R. No. 141, together with addendum
thereto, having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the
State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon
such information and belief does hereby certify that E.I.R. No. 141, together
with addendum, is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and the City and State Guidelines. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-139: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-139 for
adoption, approving Reclassification No. 74-75-23 and authorizing the prepara-
tion of the necessary ordinance to change the zone as requested, subject to the
cOndition recommended by the City Planning Commission, amending Condition No. 9
to read as follows:
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City
Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued; or, if
determined feasible and desirable by the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Depart-
ment, dedication of additional acreage for the expansion of Edison Park shall
be made in conformance with provisions of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, and if dedication is deemed more appropriate, said additional park land
shall be reflected on any tentative tract maps submitted on subject property.
75-267
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25; 197~; 1;30 P,M,
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-23 - RM-4000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-139 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-140: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-140 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2670 in part, denying waiver "b" as recommended
by the City Planning Commission, subject to the one condition recommended by
the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO.
2670, IN PART ONLY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-140 duly passed and adopted.
COUNCIL' PREFERENCE - DEDICATION OF LAND FOR EXPANSION OF EDISON PARK RATHER THAN
IN-LIEU F~ES (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-23): On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council indicated that if it is feasible,
they would prefer dedication of acreage for expansion of Edison Park rather
than payment of park in-lieu fees. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 142 - CERTIFICATION: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, E.I.R. No. 142 having been reviewed by
the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in com-
pliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental
Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does
hereby certify that E.I.R. No. 142 is in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and the City and State Guidelines. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-141: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-141 for
adoption, approving Reclassification No. 74-75-24 and authorizing the prepara-
tion of the necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested subject to the
conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, amending Condition Nos.
7 and 9 to read as follows:
7. That the petitioner shall construct drainage facilities in La Palma
Avenue between State College Boulevard and Acacia Street in accordance with the
City of Anaheim Master Plan for Drainage and as approved by the City Engineer.
9. That subject property shall be developed precisely in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
l'(Revision No. 2), 2 and 5 (Revision Nos. 1), and 3 and 4, provided however
that a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer strip shall be provided along the entire
westerly boundary of subject property rather than the 20 feet shown on the
submitted plans and that an additional 10 feet of landscaping shall be provided
along the entire State College Boulevard frontage.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-24 - CL)
75-268
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ ..1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES; COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-141 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved for a 15-minute recess. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilmen Seymour and Sneegas. (4:55 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1512: Application by
William S. and Carol P. Harvey to permit the storage of fireworks in the ML
Zone on property located on the northwest side of Fountain Way, north of La
Palma Avenue, was submitted together with application for Exemption Status from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-23, recom-
mended that subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare
an environmental impact report and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1512.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
Leonard A. Goldman, Attorney for the petitioner, and public hearing held
March 18, 1975, at which time it was continued to this date pending report from
City staff regarding provisions of the State Fire Code regarding storage of
fireworks within 100 feet of a location which uses Class I flammables or
gasoline materials.
The Deputy City Clerk submitted a memorandum received from the Fire Marshal
indicating that the flammable liquids stored at 1181 North Fountain Way are
located 110 feet from the exterior wall of 1189 Fountain Way, the structure in
which the fireworks are proposed to be stored. The City Attorney advised that
this is the only stipulation in the Code, i.e., that fireworks may not be stored
within 100 feet of Class I flammable liquids, so that it appears at the present
time there would be no violation should the proposed use be permitted.
In reply to Mayor Thom, the Fire Marshal reported that there is a regulation
that flammable liquids be kept in a designated storage area and properly signed.
Mrs. Stephens, representing the Jewett Company in opposition to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1512, contended that when she tape measured the distance it
totalled only 108 feet and further stated that when Fire Marshal Phillips went
out to measure the property the flammable liquids were moved from the area in
which they are usually kept because it was being cleaned.
Councilman Pebley questioned whether the Fire Rating Bureau will cause
this building and those adjacent to it to have different fire insurance ratings
because of the storage of fireworks.
Councilman Sneegas returned to the Council Chamber. (4:59 P.M.)
Ms. Pam Kofmehl, Commercial Insurance Underwriter, was recognized by the
Mayor and explained the role of the Fire Rating Bureau in establishing rate
classifications and how these are used by the insurance service offices to
promulgate and publish rates. These rates are then used by all insurance
companies in establishing a tariff rate to which an underwriter can assign
credits or debits, making the insurance more or less costly, commensurate with
the risk involved. Ms. Kofmehl voiced her opinion that fireworks because of
their propensity to deflagrate, may be considered by insurance underwriters in
the same risk categories as plastic factories. She noted that even if the Fire
Rating Bureau did not change the published rate, a company located adjacent to
fireworks storage would receive a less favorable reaction from an insurance
underwriter. She indicated that she did not mean to state that it would not be
possible for adjacent buildings to obtain fire insurance, and related some of
the factors taken into consideration by the insurance underwriter in determining
whether or not a risk is acceptable.
75-269
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1;30
Councilman Pebley inquired of the City Attorney whether or not the condi-
tional use permit could be granted with a provision that if fire insurance
rates increase or fire ratings are changed on adjacent buildings, then the
conditional use permit would immediately be void.
Mr. Watts replied that this would be highly unusual, but could be achieved
on the theory that if the use of the building for fireworks storage proved
detrimental to adjoining properties, then the conditional use permit would be
null and void.
The Mayor observed that this type of condition would be difficult to
enforce and would most likely have to be resolved via civil law suit.
The Mayor noted that the last time this matter was considered Mr. Myers'
presentation was interrupted and offered him an opportunity to complete his
remarks.
Mr. Herbert Myers, 1181 North Fountain Way, related that his building is
adjacent to subject property in which it is proposed under Conditional Use
Permit No. 1512 to store fireworks. He advised that his building is not pre-
sently sprinklered, and that he has ascertained it would cost $1.00 per square
foot to install sprinklers and $4,000 for hook-up, a total capital investment
in his building of $12,000. Further he noted that there exists the possibility
that he might not be able to obtain fire insurance unless he installs these
sprinklers. He referred again to the petition submitted last week which indi-
cated that a majority of the landowners and employees on the street are in
opposition to the storage of fireworks at the proposed location.
In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood's concern regarding the Class I flammable
liquids material which is used at his business location, Mr. Myers assured her
that this is conducted within OSHA standards.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, either in
favor or in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1512 and there being no
response, he offered the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Leonard Goldman, Attorney for the applicant, offered to answer any
questions.
Councilman Pebley asked Mr. Goldman if his client would be willing, should
there be any increase in the insurance rates on the buildings adjacent because
of the proposed use, to compensate for this incremental increase, and
Bill Higgens, General Manager, Ace Fireworks Company, Bellview, Washington,
stipulated that he would be willing to pay such difference in insurance rates
if it were to occur.
Mr. Myers raised another point of objection, inquiring whether the granting
of Conditional Use Permit No. 1512, allowing storage of fireworks at subject
location, would then make a portion of his building off limits for use of the
flammable material and further, should his present tenant leave, would he be
restricted as far as future potential tenants because of the fireworks storage
operation.
Fire Marshal Phillips stated that the regulation regarding flamm~ble
liquids applies only to storage of same, which must be 100 feet from the fire-
works, but that his tenant could continue to use the flammable material in
small amounts as presently is being done inside the building. Further, should
his tenant vacate the premises, any use would be permitted so long as it was in
compliance with the ML Zone.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether the fireworks will require any
repackaging at this location to which Mr. Higgens replied negatively, indicating
that no packaging would be conducted in this facility at all.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Sneegas noted that he felt the
location of these fireworks in this proximity to the other businesses would
create an unfair psychological burden on the adjoining property owners and fur-
ther that there must be a more suitable facility in the City for storage of
fireworks with sufficient space surrounding it.
75-270
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March ZS~ 1975~ 1;30
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, 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.
Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-142: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-142 for
adoption, sustaining the City Planning Commission action, denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 1512.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1512.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-142 duly passed and adopted.
EXTENSION OF TIME - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-36 (TENTATIVE MAPS~ TRACT NOS.
8775~ 8793~ 8795 AND 8796): Request of James L. Christensen, Public Relations,
Matreyek Homes, Inc., dated February 24, 1975, for a one-year extension of time
to Reclassification No. 73-74-36 was submitted, together with reports from the
City Engineer and Development Services Department, Zoning Division, recommending
said extension be granted.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, a one-year
extension of time for Reclassification No. 73-74-36 was granted as requested,
expiring March 19, 1976. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
APPLICATION - BLUE AND WHITE TRANSPORTATION, INC.: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the application submitted by Carl P.
Giaconelli, President, Blue and White Transportation, Inc., requesting to
operate 20 taxi cabs within the City of Anaheim was continued to the meeting of
April 22, 1975, as requested by the applicant. Councilman Seymour absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - SUBSTITUTION OF BUILDING MATERIALS - VARIANCE NO. 2525: Zoning Super-
visor Roberts reported on request considered by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held March 17, 1975, to substitute metal buildings finished with
a simulated stucco material manufactured by Best Steel and called "Tex-Coat" in
connection with Variance No. 2525 which was granted by the City Planning Commis-
sion on July 23, 1973 to establish a mini-warehouse facility. He noted that
originally the plans called for exterior building material of concrete tilt-up
panels or concrete block wall. He displayed a sample of the proposed material
in the two shades which the applicant proposes to use and advised that the
Planning Commission, in reviewing this request, indicated the proposal appears
to be a satisfactory alternative.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced concern over the repair and replacement of
this material and further whether the 15-year guarantee on same would be honored
by the manufacturer. She indicated that she did not feel this to be an adequate
substitution for the materials originally proposed.
Mr. John Hagestad, 17442 Butternut, Irvine, representing Best Steel and
the developer, indicated that the firm has a good reputation and has been in
the metal or steel business for a number of years. The Tex-Coat process has
been in existence for 2 to 3 years and has been used throughout California. He
assured Councilwoman Kaywood that it would be easy to replace a panel which
sustains structural damage and in the event that the company had gone out of
business this coating material could be duplicated with plaster. He stated
that tests made on the product indicate it should last from 25 to 30 years. He
also noted that this type of construction is more expensive than the originally
proposed concrete tilt-up panel and is being considered in order to create a
nicer looking project.
75-271
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1;30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas the City
Council approved the use of metal buildings with a "Tex-Coat" finish for
construction of the mini-warehouses in connection with Variance No. 2525, in-
dicating this material to be an acceptable alternate to that which was originally
proposed. Councilman Seymour absent. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-143 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 1254: In accordance with
recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No.
75R-143 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING
ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT:
THE FEE ANA STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT, I~ THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO
1254. (Espinosa and Espinosa, Inc., $10,517.10)
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL iiEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-143 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-144 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 828: In accordance with recom-
mendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-
144 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING
ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT:
DOUGLAS ROAD PUMP STATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 828. (Ecco
Contractors, Inc., $40,699.20)
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-144 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Pebley, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. PUBLIC DANCE AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits were
granted subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit for the Anaheim Firemen's Show at the Anaheim
Convention Center, 800 West Katella Avenue, April 6, 1975, from 10:00 p.m. to
midnight. (Lloyd L. Lowry, Image Company, Applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit for three pool tables and one bowling machine
to be located at The Woods, 1287-B East Lincoln Avenue. (Dorothy L. Baysinger,
Applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Permit for three pool tables to be located at Pappy's
1029 North Magnolia Avenue. (Warren J. Harding, Applicant)
d. Amusement Devices Permit for one vidio pong game to be located at the
Anaheim Municipal Golf Course, 430 North Gilbert Street. (Gerald L. Fullerton,
S & K Marketing Services, Applicant)
e. Amusement Devices Permit for one baseball pinball machine to be located
at The Woods, 1287-B East Lincoln Avenue. (James T. Moore, Rowe Service Company,
Inc., Applicant)
75-272
City. Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNqI.L. MINUTES - March 25~.1975~ 1:30 P.M.
2. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to
the insurance carrier:
a. Claim submitted by James Emmi for damages sustained purportedly as a
result of size of drain pipes and drainage ditches causing flooding, on or
about December 4, 1974.
b. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California on behalf of
Petra Y. Dorado for damages sustained to vehicle purportedly as a result of
collision with City vehicle, on or about December 10, 1974.
c. Claim submitted by Yvonne Kastelz, Postal Instant Press, for damage
sustained to vehicle purportedly as a result of condition of alleyway at 1251
Lincoln Avenue, on or about January 23, 1975.
3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - February 13, 1975.
b. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of February, 1975 for
the Customer Service Division and the Engineering Division.
c. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Application - Advice Letter
No. 911 of Southern California Gas Company to increase revenues to offset
higher gas costs resulting from increases in the price of natural gas purchased
from E1 Paso Natural Gas Company, Transwestern Pipeline Company and California
Producers.
d. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - February 20, 1975.
e. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County:
Westminster Resolution Nos. 1639, 1642, and 1645
Newport Beach Resolution Nos. 8441, 8445, and 8447
Garden Grove Resolution Nos. 4723-75 and 4725-75
Irvine Resolution No. 388
Yorba Linda Resolution No. 740
Costa Mesa Resolution No. 75-20
Villa Park Resolution No. 75-383
La§una Beach Resolution No. 75.40
Fullerton Resolution No. 5845
Los Alamitos Resolution Nos. 725 and 731
f. Airport Land Use Commission - Minutes - March 6, 1975.
g. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission -
Notice and Agenda -March 17, 1975.
4. FULLERTON CREEK CHANNEL - O.C.F.C.D. PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS: Orange
County Flood Control District plans and special provisions for the construction
of the Fullerton Creek Channel from Harbor Boulevard through Lemon Street were
approved, as recommended by the City Engineer.
Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-145 - OPPOSING CREATION OF MANDATORY REGIONAL GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES AND OPPOSING GRANT OF TAXING POWER TO SUCH AGENCIES: Councilman Sneegas
requested that the letter and attached Resolution No. 2 from Supervisor
Schabarum, Board of Supervisors, County of Los Angeles, dated March 12~ 1975,
be removed from the Consent Calendar and proposed that the Anaheim City Council
adopt a similar resolution to indicate a pomition of opposition on these
matters.
Following brief Council discussion, during which Councilman Sneegas stressed
that he felt it imperative that the Anaheim City Council take a position in
these matters so that no implied consent to the concept of Southern California
ASsociation of Governments creating a taxing agency could be construed,
Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-145 for adoption, taking a posi-
tion similar to that indicated in Resolution No. 2 and also incorporating the
four points mentioned in the body of Supervisor Schabarum's letter.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSING THE CREATION
OF MANDATORY REGIONAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND OPPOSING THE GRANT OF THE
TAXING POWER TO SUCH AGENCIES.
75-273
~ity Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M,
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-145 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-146 THROUGH 75R-151: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution
Nos. 75R-146 through 75R-151, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with
the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on
the Consent Calendar Agenda:
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-146 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Hallcraft Homes, Inc.; Amelia Stanway; Franc G. Koch; William T. Hood;
Eirlys Jane James)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-147 - ABANDONMENT NO. 74-10A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON. (No. 74-10A, April 22, 1975,
2:30 P.M., portion of dedicated roadway commonly known as Coronado Street,
lying between Grove and Jefferson Street)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-148 - ABANDONMENT NO. 74-11A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON. (No. 74-11A, April 22, 1975,
2:30 P.M., existing former Edison Company easement located east of Rio Vista
Street, south of Frontera Street)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-149 - ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 74-19E: A RESOLUTION OF T~E
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITR RAYMOND G. AND ESTELLE K. SPEHAR AND MARCIA ANN
HALLIGAN. (No. 74-19E, to encroach upon a portion of an existing drainage
easement located at the east side of Imperial Highway, north of La Palma Avenue
for the purpose of landscaping, parking, concrete curbing, and six-foot high
wall, David B. Garrison, Carl's Jr. Restaurant, Applicant)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-150 - WORK ORDER NOS. 599 AND 844: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING T~AT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT,
TO WIT: THE PEARSON PARK AMPHITHEATRE IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NOS. 599 AND 844; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING T~E CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - April 17,
1975, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-151 - 1975-76 WEED ABATEMENT CONTRACT: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING THE NECESSITY PURSUANT TO GOVERN-
MENT CODE SECTION 39576.5 TO CONTRACT FOR THE CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF ALL RANK
GROWTH AND WEED§, AND REMOVAL OF RUBBISh, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR
PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALLING FOR BIDS THEREON, AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE THEREFOR,
ACCOUNT NO. 322-297. (1975-1976) (Bids to be Opened - April 24, 1975,
2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-146 through 75R-151 both inclusive
duly passed and adopted. ' '
75-274
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25; 1975; 1;30 P,M,
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held March 3, 1975, pertaining to the following applications were
submitted for City Council information and consideration:
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council authorized the actions pertaining to environmental impact requirements
as recommended by the City Planning Commission and sustained the actions taken
by the City Planning Commission in connection with the following applications:
(Item Nos. 1 through 14)
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS: The City Council
ratified the determination made by the Director of Development Services that
the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applications fall within
the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, 5, or 11 of the City of Anaheim Guide-
lines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and are, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file said report:
Conditional Use Permit No. 1515
Variance No. 2657
Variance No. 2677
Conditional Use Permit 1519
Variance No. 2676
Variance No. 2680
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS: The City Council
found that the projects in the following listed zoning applications will have
no significant effect on the environment and are, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report:
Conditional Use Permit No. 1518 Variance No. 2678
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1515: Submitted by R. S. Minnick to permit
truck rentals in conjunction with an existing service station on CL zoned
property located at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon
Street with Code waivers of:
a. Minimum landscaping adjacent to street frontages.
b. Minimum landscaping adjacent to interior boundaries.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-47, granted
said conditional use permit for a period of two years, subject to conditions.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1518: Submitted by Brown-Bevis Industrial
Equipment Company to establish an infant day care and preschool facility in the
RS-7200 Zone on property located between Topanga Drive and Harding Avenue,
south of Lincoln Avenue, with Code waivers of:
a. Permitted uses in required yards.
b. Maximum fence height.
c. Maximum sign area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-48, granted
said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1519: Submitted by Dale E. and Sarah Ann Fowler
to permit an automobile and truck wheel alignment, brake and frame repair
service on ML zoned property at the southeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and Red
Gum Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-49, granted
said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2657: Submitted by DEW Construction Company to permit the
outdoor storage of boats in the ML (SC) Zone, property is located on the south
side of La Palma Avenue, east of Lakeview Avenue, with Code waivers of:
a. Minimum front setback.
b. Maximum fence height.
c. Minimum number of parking spaces.
d. Required enclosure of outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-42, denied
said variance.
75-2 75
~it7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M,
7. VARIANCE NO. 2676: Submitted by Martha K. Schumacher to establish an auto-
mobile repair and body shop with parts sales in the CG Zone on property located
on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, south of North Street with Code waivers
of:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Minimum off-street parking.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-51, granted
said variance for operation between the hours of 7:30 a.m. t° 5:30 p.m., subject
to conditions.
8. VARIANCE NO. 2677: Submitted by Annetta Casella to permit the continued
operation of an equipment rental facility on ML zoned property located at the
northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, with Code waivers
of:
a. Minimum front setback.
b. Required tree landscaping.
c. Required enclosure of outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-52, granted
said variance for a period of one year, subject to conditions.
9. VARIANCE NO. 2678: Submitted by Walker and Lee, Inc., to construct a
modular home sales and display complex in the RS-A-43,000 Zone on property
located on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard,
with Code waivers of:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Maximum sign area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-53, granted
Variance No. 2678 in part only, denying waiver "b" and granting waiver "a" for
a period of two years and 90 days, subject to conditions. ~
10. VARIANCE NO. 2680: Submitted by Charles K. Patterson to establish an auto-
mobile body and paint repair facility on CG zoned property located at the
southwest corner of North Street and Anaheim Boulevard, with Code waiver of:
a. Permitted uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-54, granted
said variance for operation from the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., subject
to conditions.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - STORM DRAIN IN EUCLID
STREET BETWEEN ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND ANAHEIM BARBER CITY CHANNEL: On recommenda-
tion by the City Planning Commission, the City Council determined that the City
of Anaheim Public Works Department project to construct a storm drain in
Euclid Street between Orangewood Avenue and Anaheim Barber City Channel will
have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - STORM DRAIN IN PLACENTIA
AVENUE BETWEEN LA JOLLA STREET AND CARBON CR~K CHANNEL: On recommendation of
the City Planning Commission, the City Council determined that the City of
Anaheim Public Works Department project to construct a storm drain in Placentia
Avenue between La Jolla Street and Carbon Creek Channel will have no significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report.
13. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - GRADING PERMIT~ 5141
CRESCENT DRIVE: On reco.--.endation of the City Planning Commission, the City
Council determined that application for grading permit to add two rooms and a
patio on an existing single-family residence at 5141 Crescent Drive will have
no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report.
75-276
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1;30 P.M.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1018 - TERMINATION: Application submitted by
Alfred D. Paino requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1018 which
permitted a walk-up restaurant to be established in conjunction with existing
amusement facility at 711 South Beach Boulevard on the basis that the restaurant
is no longer operating, was granted by the City Planning Commission. Said
termination accomplished pursuant to their Resolution No. PC75-55.
Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held March 3, 1975, pertaining to the following
applications were removed from the above Consent Calendar for discussion and
separate action by the City Council: (Item Nos. 1 through 3)
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1520: Submitted by State Industries to permit
a private tennis facility in the ML Zone on property located at the northwest
corner of La Mesa Street and Kraemer Place, with Code waivers of:
a. Minimum front setback.
b. Minimum landscaped setback.
c. Maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-50, granted
said conditional use permit in part only, denying waivers "a", "b", and "c",
subject to conditions.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that Conditional Use Permit No. 1520 be set
for public hearing.
2. REQUEST - EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1063 AND 1072:
Request submitted by C. M. McNees for an extension of time to establish a hall
for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc., with an on-sale liquor
establishment in an existing structure at 1721 South Manchester Avenue (Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1063) and to establish a bus depot in an existing structure
at 1711 South Manchester Avenue (Conditional Use Permit No. 1072) were granted
by the City Planning Commission, Conditional Use Permit No. 1063 being retro-
active to October 7, 1974, expiring October 7, 1975 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 1072 retroactive to November 4, 1974 and expiring November 4, 1975, subject
to conditions.
Marjorie Mize LeGaye, Attorney, 1666 North Main Street, Santa Ana, repre-
sentMr. Clarence McNees, related that these two conditional use permits were
originally approved in 1968 and have been extended annually for the five ensuing
years. She reported that these most recent extensions of time, granted by the
City Planning Commission at their meeting of March 3, 1975, were approved,
subject to the condition: "That the owner(s) of subject property shall dedicate
to the State of California, Division of Highways, a strip of land along Haster
Street and Manchester Avenue for street widening purposes, as determined to be
necessary by the State Division of Highways and upon demand of said Division of
Highways."
Ms. LeGaye stated that it is this condition which her client objects to
and which she is requesting be deleted. She noted that review of the case file
on these conditional use permits indicates that when they were granted with the
one year restriction, the purpose for this was noted to be to determine what
effect such use of the property would have on the surrounding area and whether
the parking was adequate. Recent investigation by City staff indicates that
these uses of the property have caused no deleterious effects and parking
appears to be adequate. She submitted that the local Planning Commission
and/or City Council exceeds its jurisdiction by requiring a dedication to
another entity, to-wit, the State of California. Further that the imposition
of this condition is prohibited by Government Code Section 65909 which states
that no local governmental body or agency thereof may condition issuance of a
building or use permit on certain factors, one being the dedication of land for
any purpose not reasonably related to the use of the property for which the
permit is requested. She indicated that dedication of property for freeway
purposes is in the interest of general State and public welfare and not reason-
ably related to the use of the property as a dance hall and bus stop, and
further, in fact, would be antagonistic to these uses.
7_5-277
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pebley left the Council Chamber. (6:05 P.M.)
In reply to the Mayor, Mr. Watts counseled that even though this condition
was imposed by the Planning Commission at one of their meetings as a routine
agenda item and not at a public hearing, he would suggest that Council set the
matter for public hearing at which time they may, if they choose, amend the
condition referred to by Ms. LeGaye.
Mayor Thom thereupon requested that Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1063 and
1072 be set for public hearing.
3. FINAL SPECIFIC FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS - TRACT NO. 7~18~ REVISION NO. 1
(RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (7)): Final specific floor plans and elevations
for Tract No. 7918, Revision No. 1, were submitted by George Putnam, Project
Coordination Director, Shapell Industries, Inc., for Council approval, together
with excerpts from the City Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 1975,
indicating said plans were approved by the City Planning Commission. Tract No.
7918, Revision No. 1, is planned to be located on the north side of Serrano
Avenue, east of Nohl Ranch Road.
Mr. Roberts reported that the floor plans and elevations submitted are
identical to those already approved by the City Council for S & S Construction
Company on the tract immediately adjacent to Tract No. 7918, Revision No. 1.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, final specific
floor plans and elevations for Tract No. 7918, Revision No. 1 were approved.
Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-152 - HOUSING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE TRAINING AND WORK EXPERIENCE
PROGRAM (NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT): Councilman Thom offered
Resolution No. 75R-152 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE NORTH ORANGE
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE TRAINING AND WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-152 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-153 THROUGH 75R-155 - POTENTIAL PARK SITE ADJACENT TO TRACT
NO. 7787: On report and recommendation by the City Attorney, Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 75R-153 through 75R-155, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANANEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE WITTENBERG CORPORA-
TION TO PURCHASE CERTAIN LAND AND REIMBURSE SAID CORPORATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROP-
ERTY FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES. (Wilder and Olson Farms, Inc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAI~EIM
ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES. (Wittenberg)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneega~ and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-153 through 75R-155 both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted. '
75-278
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25.~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
LETTER AGREEMENT - WITTENBERG CORPORATION - IMPROVEMENTS TO QUINTANA DRIVE (TRACT
NO. 7787): Mr. William Devitt reported that a letter agreement with Wittenberg
Corporation has been drafted for Council approval, indicating the City's portion
of improvements to Quintana'Drive to be constructed in conjunction with Tract
No. 7787 as follows:
James E. Danner Construction - $1,531.10 for import grading and compaction.
McGrew Construction Company - $20,697.63 for all other improvements.
Mr. Devitt indicated that the quantities used in the letter are approximate
° and are subject to final measurement and correction, if necessary. He reported
that in addition to the above noted costs, there are some $11,200 in expenses
for acquisition of land and for street.lights.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council approved the letter agreement with the Wittenberg Corporation relating
to street improvements in Quintana Drive as outlined, and authorized the City
Engineer to sign same. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS - COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND: On motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized the transfer of $35,000
from the Council Contingency Fund for the purpose of carrying out the City's
portion of the obligation to construct street improvements along Quintana Drive
adjacent to Tract No. 7787. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-156 - AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT - DONALD J. FEARS~ ARCHITECT TO
INCLUDE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN OF JUAREZ PARK SITE LIBRARY: Councilman Thom
offered Resolutio~ No. 75R-156 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS~OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
DONALD J. FEARS, ARCHITECT, EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF SAID AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. (Juarez Park site)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-156 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn to Tuesday, April 1, 1975, 9:00
a.m. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:20 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk~