1975/04/22City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of'Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY:' William Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS DIRECTOR: John J. Collier
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald
COMMUNITY RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Garza
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCI2%MATION: Mayor Thom proclaimed the month of May, 1975, Cultural Arts
Month in Anaheim.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held March 25.,
1975, and Adjourned Regular Meeting held April 1, 1975, were approved on motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading
of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of
such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount of $309,616.83, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
UP-DATE, POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS TASK FORCE COMMITTEE: Mr. Amin David, 419
South Colt Street, Chairman of the Police Community Relations Task ForCe Commit-
tee, was recognized by Mayor Thom andcame forward to bring the City Council up
to date on their progress. He noted that at the request of the Anaheim Police
75-365
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Department, a unique project called "prevention, understanding and cooperation"
(PUC) was instituted, with initial contact made in July of 1974. In February
of 1975, meetings of their committee were initiated every two weeks at the
Police Department, the intentions and purposes thereof being the relaxation and
eventual elimination of distrust between the community, police, and youth
elements in the City, and the creation of a Human Relations Commission sponsored
Police Community Planning Committee whose sole responsibility would be the
coordinated development, implementation and analysis of preventative police
community relations.
Currently, the Committee is in the process of giving a series of eight
full morning sessions for local police officers in order to provide awareness
to these officers regarding the minority community, and how to handle crisis
calls in the community. He noted that one of the prime responsibilities of the
Committee is to address the phenomena which occurs when news of a police inci-
dent is passed by word of mouth and is compounded during the process. The
Committee does not believe that the responsibility for good law enforcement
rests solely with the Police Department, but almost entirely with each citizen.
It is expected that further areas to be included in the Committee's function
will be to provide a community workshop oriented toward citizen responsibility
and toward youths. He noted that they have initiated a series of weekly
coffee klatches with residents, attended by the Chief of Police.
Mr. David expressed the hope that the efforts of the Committee would not
be misinterpreted, nor construed to mean that they wish to establish a police
review committee. He invited all members of the City Council to join the
Committee at their next meeting April 23, 1975, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the
Police Department.
Mayor Thom thanked Mr. David for his report and commended the Police
Community Relations Committee for their efforts.
UP-DATE - PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~ PETITION OF GRIEVANCES:
Mrs. Josephine Montoya, 310 North Philadelphia Street, was recognized by the
Mayor and addressed the Council representing the People for Community Develop-
ment, expressing appreciation for the cooperation and assistance they have
received from the City. She advised that Mr. Joe Mesa has been assigned to
assist the group in taping and documenting complaints against the Anaheim
Police Department, and that they would hold two taping sessions at the City
Personnel Office on April 26, and 28, 1975. Tapes and documentation should be
completed for submission to the City Manager by the middle of next week.
Mrs. Montoya reported that the group currently numbers 45 members and con-
tinues to hold weekly meetings. Their purpose is to work in a cooperative
manner with the City and Police Department for a better community and after the
grievance petition has been resolved, the group will continue to function with
the same purpose as its goal.
The Mayor expressed his appreciation to Mrs. Montoya for her report..
SPECIAL MEETING - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: At the request of Redevelopment Director
Knowlton Fernald, special meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was called
pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code, to be held Tuesday, April 29,
1975 at 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chamber, for the purpose of considering:
a. The proposed boundaries of Redevelopment Project Beta.
b. General problems concerning Redevelopment Project Alpha (with the
Redevelopment Commission).
REPORT - IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT AUDIT~ PARKS; RECREATION AND THE ARTS
DEPARTMENT: Mr. Jim LeSieur of Arthur Young & Company recalled that the report
on the Management Audit of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department was.
presented to the City Council April 15, 1975, however, implementation was
deferred to this date. He gave a brief review of the report.and recommendations,
noting that it had been pointed out there was a potential to use State bond
monies, revenue sharing monies, or general funds which may have been carried
forward from previous years for salaries for design and construction of park
75-366
City_~al_l~_Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
facilities. Although the report referred to the implementation of this potential
as a savings, he clarified that it would result in a budget reduction this
year. Since the report was made to the Council, the Parks Division has been
requested to do some planning for additional pending projects, the four primary
park projects being Twila Reid Park (covered by revenue sharing funds with
approximately $200,000 available), Rio Vista Park, Juarez Park, and Schweitzer
Park, the latter three being covered by State bond monies in the approximate
amount of $578,000. By using these funds where appropriate for City salaries
and construction activities against the four projects, two can be completed
within the 1975-76 budget year, and the bulk of work on the other two can be
accomplished in that time period, with completion thereof in the year 1976-77.
The three parks for which State bond monies would be used will also require
additional funding from the General Fund.
Mr. LeSieur was of the opinion that the planning process employed by the
Parks Division for these imminent projects was the type of thorough planning
which should be instituted prior to the undertaking of any projects. In some
areas it was found that City personnel could perform work at a lower cost than
the cost of contracting the work out.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether there was any possibility that the
four parks might not be completed the fiscal year 1976-77 as scheduled, if the
recommendations are adopted, and questioned the amount of additional ~cnies
which will be needed from the General Fund.
Mr. LeSieur replied that approximately $200,000 would be needed from the
General Fund. He noted the possibility that various projects can be delayed if
budgetary problems arise.
As noted by Councilman Seymour, Mr. LeSieur concurred that the implementa-
tion of the four projects as scheduled would depend upon whatever financial
decision is made by the City Council concerning the 1975-76 budget.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Manager was instructed to work up a schedule for implementation of the recommen-
dations ~ Arthur Young & Company for the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Depart-
ment. MOTION CARRIED.
Further discussion ensued, and in response to question by Councilwoman
Kaywood, Mr. LeSieur stated that all four parks wili be completed in the 1976-77
budget year, two will be completed in 1975-76 and the other two in 1976-77,
however, the bulk of the work will be done in 1975-76. He stated additional
monies would be necessary from the General Fund to complete all four projects
in the 1975-76 budget year.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that these particular pmr~s ~ve been promised
for a good many years, and she did not want the construction process to be
delayed.
For clarification purposes~ Councilman Seymour stated that the recommenda-
tion of Arthur Young & Company is a procedural one, ~.e., charge costs against
State bond and revenue sharing monies to the fullest extent possible and then
use General Fund monies fcr remaining costs. It is Council's decision, however,
as to the amount of General Fund monies to be used and during which budget
year.
City Manager Keith Murdoch reported that in reviewing a portion of the
Arthur Ycung recommendation for using part-time personnel, a minor problem
arose. Approximately 19 positions (14 Laborers and 5 Custodians) ~n the park
maintenance function were recommended for part-time staffing to cover over-time
and peak load activities, therel:y creating a savings in pay rates and fringe
benefits, amd eliminating 19 full-time positions from the budget request. The
problem arises in that three full-time Custodians have been on tke job fcr some
time, and the question was whether the existing full-time personnel should be
relocated or kept on tke job. He was of the o~ion that the lay-off of the
existing full-t~me wcrkers and elimination of the positions as a money-saving
approach would be difficult to accomplish.
75-367
City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22; 19.75; 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Sneegas felt that in essence there was a moral issue at stake,
i.e., loyalty to City Employees, and if the benefit of omitting fringe benefits
and lowering pay rates justifies the lay off of existin8 competent personnel,
then logically it could be done throughout all the city departments.
For the purpose of clarification, Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was never
her intention to effect the loss of anyone's job. The three existing Park
Custodians, if they are doing satisfactory work, should be kept on, and if
possible transferred to another area.
REPORT - ARTHUR YOUNG & COMFANY~ FIRE DEPARTMENT AUDIT PLANS: At the April 15,
1975, meeting, engagement plans for the management Audit of Life, Property, and
Protection Study and the Library Department were approved with the exception of
those for the Fire Department.
Mr. Jim LeSieur addressed the Council recalling that Roger Hewitt and Joe
Hill had been designated to work in this area, and both had been reported as
having extensive experience in the area of Police Department operations.
Councilman Sneegas had questioned Mr. Hewitt's experience as related to the
Fire Department operations.
Mr. LeSieur reported that at the time the engagement plans for the Manage-
ment Audit of the Life, Property, and Protection Study were formed, it was
realized that strength of experience was lacking in the Fire Department area,
when compared with experience in Police operations. As a result, the Company
engaged as technical advisor Mr. Robert Kearny, who retired approximately two
years ago after 30 years on the Berkeley Fire Department, 10 years as Captain,
1 year as Deputy Fire Chief and 3 years as Fire Chief. He is also past presi-
dent of the State Firemen's Association, and copies of his detailed resume will
be forwarded to the Audit Steering Committee in the very near future. Approxi-
mately 15% of the budget time of the Fire Department audit relates to the work
of the technical advisor.
Mr. LeSieur further reported on Mr. Hewitt's background, advising that in
addition to being a Manager in the Arthur Young & Company's Sacramento office,
he has 13 years' consulting experience in the law enforcement field. He was
involved in the evaluation of the status and effectiveness of emergency prepared-
ness system in San Diego County, during which study all aspects of public
safety were reviewed, including fire, civil defense, and law enforcement. He
was a lead consultant in a general management study of a police department in a
large Texas city. Prior to joining Arthur Young & comPany, he was a Lieutenant
having 12 years' experience on the Berkeley Police Department, and much of his
recent work activity has been concentrated in work load evaluation and manpower
allocation.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, work plans
for the Management Audit of the Fire Department were approved. MOTION CARRIED.
UP-DATE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT CONTRACT TO DE-POOL
MISCELLANEOUS MEMBER PORTION: Personnel Director Garry McRae advised that pursu-
ant to Resolution of Intent No. 75R-178 to de-pool the miscellaneous member
portion from the agreement with PERS and provide the unused sick leave credit
benefits, the ordinance amending the agreement was prepared and will be sub-
mitted to the City Council for first reading this date. He reported that when
the question of de-pooling came up, prior to discussions with employee organiza-
tions, the question was raised whether the City could participate in the unused
sick leave credit benefit with its employees, recognizing that they already
receive a percentage of unused sick leave benefit upon separation. On March
27, 1975, a letter was received from Mr. Kisuk Yang, Chief Actuary of the PERS,
which stated if an agency pays cash for only a certain number of days, a balance
of the unused sick leave could be credited towards retirement. This was inter-
preted to mean the City could do both, however, subsequently there were indica-
tions that the City might not be permitted to pay a portion of unused sick
leave and receive the sick leave credit benefit for retirement purposes.
After the City Council gave the original instructions to proceed with the
preparation of the necessary documents to effect the amendment to the retirement
contract, the Personnel Department corresponded with PERS indicating the
75-368
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
intent of the Council. A reply was received April 21, 1975, advising that
their staff had reviewed the City's resolution of intent, and Anaheim's adoption
of Section 20862.8 cannot be refused; however, it is considered ineffective for
any member of the system who receives any cash settlement because of accumulated
sick leave.
City Attorney Alan Watts counseled that the communication from PERS indi-
cates they will allow the City to pay them 25% of the unused sick leave benefit,
which would amount to approximately $85,000 per year, however, city employees
will not receive any benefits therefrom. That position appears to be untenable.
If the City Council determines to proceed with first reading of the ordinance,
enter into an agreement with PERS for the de-pooling, and wait for declaratory
relief from the Court as to which interpretation is correct. The other alterna-
tive would be to defer action until it is determined how the issue will be
resolved.
Mayor Thom questioned whether another city had challenged PERS in a similar
situation and had prevailed.
Mr. Watts stated that he was unaware of such an incident.
At the conclusion of brief Council discussion, the City Council indicated
its intent to proceed with first reading of the ordinance (See Ordinance No.
3418, Page No. 75-386).
PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION STUDY: On the recommendations of the Personnel Director
and in accordance with previous recommendations made by Arthur Young & Company,
Councilman Seymour moved that the Personnel Director be authorized to enter
into negotiations with Arthur Young & Company for the performance of a classifi-
cation and pay study and design of a performance evaluation system for all non-
sworn full-time City funded positions in all City departments at a fee between
$30,000 and $40,000, the initial impact up to $30,000 to be absorbed by the
Personnel Department Budget, and any remainder to be paid from the Council
Contingency Account. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
AMENDMENT TO RETIREMENT CONTRACT: The City Manager reported on proposed amendment
to the retirement contract with the Public .Employees' Retirement System to make
a 5% cost of living adjustment for five employees retired between January 1,
and July 1, 1971, which would be a one-time lump sum payment, the total of
which would amount to less than $15,000 as originally estimated, and would be
based on an actuarial evaluation of the affected people.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-197: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-197
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD
OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-197 duly passed and adopted.
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING UTILITY RATE INCREASES: Public Utilities Director
Gordon Hoyt read his four-page memorandum report dated April 22, 1975, on file
in the Office of the City Clerk together with Exhibits "F" and "G" (copies
distributed to each Council Member), reaffirming his previous recommendation of
April 15, 1975, to raise the retail fuel cost adjustment to .969 cents per
kilowatt hour, effective May 1, 1975. At such time as the California Public
Utilities Commission establishes the retail fuel cost adjustment for the Southern
California Edison Company, he proposed to return to the City Council with a
further recommendation on the level of Anaheim's fuel cost adjustment. He was
75-369
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
of the opinion that the City's retail rates would have to be very near those of
the Edison Company until the price squeeze issue is resolved, or until the pro-
posed generation projects are in operation.
Attention was called to the "scenario" (Exhibits "F" and "G") attached to
the report, and Mr. Hoyt noted that the projections were based on assumptions
made for the results of certain operations. The increased rates projected are
5% below the Edison Company's estimated retail rates, and he reported that each
one percent change in this relationship would result in a corresponding change
of approximately $535,000 in the amount available for transfer to the General
Fund. He advised that he had no confidence in the scenario; that the assumptions
were based on the statements made by the Edison Company of their fuel costs,
and the only estimate which could be made was that their request for an increase
in retail base rates would be granted as of January 1, 1976 as requested. His
lack of confidence was based on the great uncertainties which are involved with
every step. The assumptions have been that future increases would take place
as requested by the Edison Company. The Public Utilities Commission has not
yet acted upon the increase requested to become effective February 1, 1975;
however the staff expects the matter to be resolved prior to May 1, 1975. This
situation is very uncertain, and in the face of these uncertainties, he believes
the City should take action at the beginning of the fiscal year to produce the
greatest amount of revenue without exceeding the Edison Company rates, and as
the situation develops, the appropriate different recommendations would be
made.
Councilman Seymour indicated his appreciation of the difficulties in
attempting to formulate a budget; however, he pointed out that when the recom-
mended rate increase was presented on April 15, 1975, Mr. Hoyt requested the
establishment of a policy by the City Council, and he failed to see how this
could be done when it is based on a schedule in which Mr. Hoyt has no confidence.
Mr. Hoyt agreed that his recommendation for the Fiscal Year 1975-76 was to
increase rates to just under those of the Edison Company, and then make appro-
priate adjustments as necessary. He noted the need for a Council policy as to
what cash transfer from the Utility operation is desired, and pointed out that
basically, all capital expansion costs in the Utilities Department are derived
from current revenue.
Pursuant to comments and questions by the City Council, Mr. Hoyt explained
that some industrial utility customers are able to purchase power from the City
at a lower average cost than the City's average wholesale costs because Anaheim's
industrial rate schedule is essentially the same as the Edison Company's A 7
lower industrial rates, and when the fuel cost adjustment currently in effect
is added, the "tail block" cost is lower than the amount the City pays for
energy. This is a temporary situation which came about as the City's wholesale
fuel cost adjustment changed, and the Edison Company's fuel cost adjustment
remained constant. In February of 1974, the City's rates were changed in
anticipation of Edison Company actions, and industrial customers paid the same
rates then as they do today. As fuel cost adjustments rose from approximately
one mill to one cent, the relationship changed for the industrial customers
only; however, the money collected was retained in the electrical revenue fund
as were collections from other customers, and industrial users paid more for
kilowatt hour than residential users. When the time came for the money to be
taken out of the fund, it came out at less than the cost to the City. The
basic economics of the situation remain the same because the industrial customer
put in more at the beginning of the fiscal year and is taking out more at the
end.
Mayor Thom and Councilman Seymour expressed concern that no preferential
treatment be shown to any group of customers and that the rates be the same for
all.
Mr. Hoyt noted that the City's rates are based on their relationship to
those of Southern California Edison Company, however, they are subject to the
current price squeeze situation. Because it is not desirable to exceed the
Edison Company's rates at any level, the City has not fixed rates so as to
derive revenue equitably; the only difference in base rates before fuel cost
adjustment being that the small commercial customers has a slightly lower rate
in the City's system than in that of the Edison Company.
75-370
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
It seemed to Mr. Hoyt to be prudent management of the Utility to not take
a chance that events will occur as projected in the "scenario". Concerning the
recent bond issue election, he pointed out that he had always indicated that no
savings will be realized by participation in the generation of electricity
before the year 1980;. and so long as the City purchases power from the Edison
Company, there is no alternative to paying their rates.
Mayor Thom called attention to Page No. 15 of Mr. Hoyt's prepared statement
read at the April 15, 1975 meeting, suggesting, as an acceptable alternative to
other methods of easing the budget situation, the use of some of the recently
authorized electrical revenue bond proceeds for normal distribution capital
construction projects until the price squeeze issue is resolved. Further, it
was proposed to use bond funds for payment of the City's past and future costs
of participation in the San Joaquin Nuclear Project and the Intermountain Power
Project. The Mayor stated he had envisioned the bond issue monies for use only
for the generation and transmission of electricity to Anaheim, and he gave
strong assurance that should this type of alternative be recommended, he did
not intend to sign the revenue bonds.
Mr. Hoyt was of the opinion that deliberately slowing the pace of construc-
tion of the project would be equally unacceptable. The alternatives had
seemed reasonable, and it seemed prudent to use bond monies for the two projects
mentioned.
Councilman Seymour pointed out the need for a realistic approach to the
situation and felt that all alternatives should be considered, such as what
would be the cost for every 30 days if the City retained the current rates to
the consumer; what are the capital items for which it is suggested to expend
$3,728,420 during the fiscal year 1975-76, and what are the possibilities of
postponing these items; the determination of how important the $4,000,000
revenue is to the General Fund; and the determination of what would be the cost
of delaying action beyond May 1, 1975.
Mr. Hoyt advised that the cost of delay would amount to approximately
$400,000 per month.
Councilman Seymour stated he would be opposed to selling the Utility in
view of the strong indications made by the citizens in approving the 1972
purchase of certain remaining Edison Company facilities, and in approving the
bond issue in 1974 for participation in generating power. He was of the opinion
that the two cents per month difference would not be essentially lower than the
Edison Company rates, as promised. By not raising our rates eight months ago,
the effect was to tighten the belt of the City. He stated he was prepared to
approve a rate increase, however, the alternatives to fulfill a portion of the
promises made to the citizens should first be determined.
Mr. Hoyt explained that in addition to the price squeeze situation, the
City has had a philosophy of setting Utility rates in relation to those of the
Edison Company. The rates of the Edison Company in the near future are uncer-
tain. The California Public Utilities Commission has not acted on Southern
California Edison Company's requests for retail fuel cost adjustment increases,
to be effective February 1, and May 1, 1975, and until action is taken, he had
no way to make a more detailed recommendation.
Councilman Sneegas called attention to the fact that the revenue from the
Utility operation is deposited into the General Fund and without that revenue,
the City tax rate would have to be greatly increased; therefore, the customer
is benefiting from the Utility even though there has been no reduction in rates
to the users. He noted that with the state of today's economy, it did not seem
to be out of line to increase the utility rates as recommended, with the possi-
bility they would not be further increased when Southern California Edison
Company's rates are raised.
Responding to question by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Hoyt reported that in
Anaheim, the average residential customer uses approximately~460 kilowatt hours
per month which costs approximately $18.31, and would be $19.83 for the same
number of kilowatt hours with the proposed increase. On the bi-monthly billing,
the proposed increase would take the average residential customer from $36.62
to $39.62, and there is no way to predict what the increase in Edison Company
rates will be.
75-373
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
the granting of the variance. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions are
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, and the condition to
granting the variance would provide recourse, in the event of violation~ in
that an Order to Show Cause why the variance should not be terminated could be
issued. The more tenable remedy would be enforcement of the private restric-
tions, probably through the homeowner's association.
In response to question by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Watts further advised
that it might be possible to challenge Leisure World on the basis of discrimina-
tion, however, it would follow that the entire housing and urban development
program also could be challenged.
Mr. Christiansen stated he would stipulate to providing a plan for the
special senior citizen amenities as condition precedent to the approval of a
final tract map. He answered additional questions by the City Council, stating
that storage is provided by cupboards in the carports, plus extra generous
storage areas in the units themselves. If the developer were required to
enclose the individual carports, the cost would necessitate an increase in the
price of the units. He would work with the Public Works Department to provide
for satisfactory trash pick-up.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not believe most 50-year old people
* consider themselves senior citizens; th~ people in their 50's/did not-~~-
** ~¥ terminate their driving habits,/~nd she was of the opinion that senior
citizens do not desire the responsibility of ownership. She expressed concern
that there is, and would continue to be a serious parking problem where there
are only 1.2 spaces per unit, and the Code requirement is 2.5 for each two- or
three-bedroom units, especially with guests visiting residents. Approval of
subject variance would be the second approval of a substandard apartment conver-
sion, and these actions only render the RM-4000 Zone meaningless. Further, if
a situation arose necessitating the filing of an Order to Show Cause why the
variance should not be terminated, the City would be liable for the costs of
the legal proceedings.
Councilmen Seymour and Sneegas disagreed that senior citizens did not want
the responsibilities of ownership.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - ENVIRONMENTAL I~ACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council ratified the determina-
tion of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines
to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact
report. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-198: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-198 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2682, subject to the following conditions:
1. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder.
2. That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office and the City Council prior to Council
approval of the final tract map, said Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
to include provisions requiring that units shall be sold and occupied only by
senior citizens (persons 50 years of age or older having no minor children).
The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded concur-
rently with the final tract map.
3. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit
to· the City Attorney and City Council for approval or denial a complete synopsis
of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation, including but not
limited to, the articles of incorporation bylaws, proposed methods of management,
bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other
information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens,
and the purchasers of the project.
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. 1 through 4, provided, however, that prior to approval of the final tract
* or 60's
** unless otherwise handicapped
*** See Minutes of June 3, 1975, 1:30 P.M., Page No. 75-494, "Minutes".
7.5-374
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
map, final development plans shall be approved by the City Council. Said final
development plans shall include "senior citizen amenities" as stipulated by the
petitioner.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
6. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution,
or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of
one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the
City Council may grant.
7. That the units in subject development shall be purchased and occupied
only by senior citizens (persons who are 50 years of age or older, having no
minor children).
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO.
2682.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIl, MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-198 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Sneegas left the Council Chamber. (4:40 P.M.)
REVIEW - APARTMENT CONVERSION ORDINANCE: Councilman Seymour suggested that
Ordinance No. 3311, governing the conversion of apartments to condominiums
(Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.31.020.0518) be reviewed for possible changes.
Councilman Sneegas returned to the Council Chamber. (4:42 P.M.)
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed opposition to reducing the standards set
forth in the existing ordinance. If an apartment project does not meet the
standards, she was of the opinion that apartment should not be approved for
conversion.
Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that in the right situation, conver-
sion meets a need for a certain type of living at a reasonable price, which is
unavailable in the City of Anaheim; that perhaps a more realistic approach to
conversion of apartments is needed. As presently established, no one can
convert to condominiums and meet the provisions of the current ordinance.
Mayor Thom concurred, being of the opinion that realities must be considered.
No action was taken by the City Council at this time.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (4:46 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 74-10A: Public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of dedicated roadway, commonly known as Coronado
Street, lying between Grove and Jefferson Streets, pursuant to Resolution No.
75R-147 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval of said
request, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all of said roadway that lies within Parcel One be abandoned, and
that a public utility and drainage easement together with all reasonable
rights of ingress and egress over, under, across and along the easterly 26
feet, more or less, be reserved.
2. That all of said roadway that lies within Parcel Two be abandoned, and
that a public utility and drainage easement together with all reasonable rights
of ingress and egress be reserved over, under, across and along all of said
Parcel Two, all as shown on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof.
75-371
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that the customers have enjoyed
savings in the amount of the proposed increase for some time. She failed to
see where any promises had been made and not delivered in past bond issues.
In answer to questions by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Hoyt reiterated a portion
of his April 15, 1975 report, advising that the projected $3,728,420 capital
expenditure is essentially for capital improvements which must be made, such as
the development of electrical facilities in Anaheim Hills; and although the
proposed Utilities budget is comparatively austere, there are some portions
which can be removed, thereby further reducing the budget. It is possible that
bond funds may have to be used, and it is certain that there will have to be
rate increases because of the increases in wholesale rates.
Mr. Hoyt further advised that if the City's rates were set at 5% below the
Edison Company's current rates, the City would bear a burden of approximately
$200,000 per month. The fuel cost adjustment would also have to be reduced so
that all users would be equally 5% less than Edison's customers, and he did not
believe this could be accomplished by May 1, 1975. He noted that the industrial
user with three full operating shifts would obtain the greatest benefit, since
the more kilowatt hours are used, the greater percent of savings are realized.
Councilman Seymour stated he would not vote on any proposal at this time
which causes the Utility customers to pay rates greater than 95% of the Edison
Company retail rates until every possible alternative has been exhausted.
In response to question by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Hoyt noted that it
would be much easier to prepare a formula which would produce rates truly below
those of the Edison Company when the existing outmoded utility billing system
is revised. He was of the opinion that a recommendation for new rate schedules
could be made within three weeks.
Councilman Seymour moved that a base rate schedule and fuel cost adjustment
at approximately 5% under those of the Southern California Edison Company, with
no discrimination between the various user categories, be prepared and submitted
for Council consideration in three weeks or less. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2682: Submitted by Elizabeth M. Lypps, et al,
requesting to convert an existing 64-unit apartment complex to condominiums on
RM-1200 zoned property located on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, south of
Lincoln Avenue, with Code waivers of:
a. Minimum building site area per dwelling unit.
b. Maximum site coverage.
c. Minimum front setback.
d. Minimum recreational-leisure area.
e. Minimum distance between buildings.
f. Minimum width of pedestrian accessways.
g. Minimum off-street parking.
h. Required parking space location.
i. Maximum fence height in front setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-60, denied
said variance.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
Barry Stept, Agent representing the petitioner, and public hearing scheduled
this date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING: The Director of Development Services has
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an
environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an environmental impact report.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject property,
the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence
submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He briefly reviewed
the requested waivers and the findings of the Planning Commission in denying
subject variance.
75-372
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (3:45 P.M.)
Mayor Thom asked if the applicant or authorized agent wished to address
the City Council.
Mr. Jim Christiansen, 2008 Deerpark PlaceD Fullerton, Agent representing
the petitioners, stated that based on the zoning ordinance pertaining to conver-
sion of apartments to condominiums, the action taken by the City Planning
Commission was correct. He was of the opinion that the ordinance was restric-
tive, as had been intended by the City Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chamber. (3:48 P.M.)
Mr. Christiansen advised he had investigated the senior citizen situation
in Anaheim, and found there are 20,000 senior citizens in the City. He also
checked with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and with State
agencies and found there is no subsidized program here for these people to own
property. He was of the opinion that the subject apartment complex meets many
of the needs for a senior citizen complex; the ideal situation for senior
citizens would be a single-story complex near a'shopping area and a medical
clinic, where a nice residence can be maintained on fixed income. It will be
some time before any similar projects are available within the Project Alpha
area.
Amenities of the garden apartments on subject property were noted, with
particular emphasis on the fact that the units are larger than minimum require-
ments and are single story. The Orange County Transit District bus line is on
Magnolia Avenue, and on La Palma Avenue there is an eye clinic and a medical
and dental clinic; the property is accessible to nearly all types of commercial
activities, and to a municipal golf course.
In Mr. Christiansen's opinion, density refers to numbers of people as well
as units per acre, and limiting the complex to senior citizens of a minimum 50
years of age would ensure a lower population density. The only significant
waiver requested was for parking area, with 96 spaces provided for the 64
dwelling units. In investigating Rossmoor Leisure World, a development in
another area which is limited to senior citizens, he found that residents there
own an average of 1.2 automobiles per dwelling, and in his opinion the majority
of senior citizens tend to have fewer automobiles and need fewer parking spaces.
In summary, Mr. Christiansen pointed out that the property can be protected
by the limitation to senior citizens through its covenants, conditions, and
restrictions and bylaws. The units are expected to sell for $26,000 to $29,000,
with monthly payments at approximately $261 including dues to the homeowners'
association. Units currently rent for $225 per month, and it would be impossible
to purchase and construct a similar complex with the landscaping and other
amenities at a comparable price. The developers intend to install new appli-
ances, new carpets and drapes, fences, and recreational facilities geared to
senior citizens, as well as making necessary repairs.
In response to questions by members of the City Council, Mr. Christiansen
advised that the majority of condominium buyers are over 50 years of age. To
the best of his knowledge, the existing apartments on the property are fully
occupied, and although he had no way of knowing how many of the tenants are
senior citizens, those who might be, will be given an opportunity to purchase a
unit. Further, to construct a similar facility would cost approximately $24 to
$25 per square foot, not including outside amenities nor the land, this being
the average cost for single-story construction today if any profit is to be
realized. Concerning the parking, he pointed out there is no room to provide
additional parking, however, he felt the situation would be greatly relieved
with the senior citizen condominium concept.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council in
support or in opposition; there being no response, he declared the public
hearing closed.
Discussion was held, and City Attorney Alan Watts counseled that if the
City Council felt the variance were justified, a limitation of ownership could
be effected through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, and a condition to
75-375
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-199: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-199
for adoption approving Abandonment No. 74-10A subject to the conditions recom-
mended by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION
AND ABANDONMENT OF THAT PORTION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (74-10A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-199 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 74-11A: Public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of an existing former Edison Company easement located east of Rio
Vista, south of Frontera Street, in the City of Anaheim pursuant to Resolution
No. 75R-148 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted
in accordance with law.
Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber. (4:48 P.M.)
Report of the City Engineer was submitted, recommending approval of said
request.
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pebley left the Council Chamber.
(4:48 P.M.)
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the City Council; there being
no response, he declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-200: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-200 for
adoption, approving Abandonment No. 74-11A, as recommended by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION
AND ABANDONMENT OF THAT PORTION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (74-11A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kmywood and Pebley
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-200 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chamber.
(4:52 P.M.)
CONTINUED DECISION - VARIANCE NO. 2671: Submitted by John Molinaro to construct
a mini-warehouse in the ML Zone; property located west of the Santa Ana Freeway
and Riverside Freeway exchange, with Code waivers of:
a. Maximum number of free-standing signs.
b. Maximum sign area.
c. Permitted sign location.
d. Minimum number~of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to their Resolution No. PC75-43,
granted said variance in part, denying waiver "a", granting conditionally
waivers "b" and "d", and granting waiver "c" for one year, subject to conditions
as listed in the City Council Minutes of April 15, 1975.
75-376
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
Calvin B. Gross, of SMA/E-Z Storage Company, and public hearing scheduled April
15, 1975, at which time the hearing was closed and resolution to approve said
variance offered. Said resolution failed to carry, and decision was continued
to this date for consideration by the entire City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING: The determination of the Director of
Development Services that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 11, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an E.I.R., was ratified by the City Council on April 15,
1975.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Pebley again offered a resolution to approve subject
variance in accordance with action taken by the City Planning Commission.
The foregoing resolution failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-201: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-201
for adoption, denying Variance No. 2671.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO.
2671.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-201 duly passed and adopted.
In response to question by Councilman Seymour, the City Attorney counseled
that the property owner and both of the involved City Councils would have to
agree in order that subject property might be annexed by the City of Buena
Park.
Mr. Fred Walters of Del Properties, La Habra, authorized Agent representing
the petitioner, was recognized and addressed the Council objecting to the City
of Buena Park's request for denial of subject variance. He pointed out that
the property is in the City of Anaheim and is properly zoned for the intended
use; that he is able to provide all the necessary utilities, and he questioned
whether the City Council was denying him the right to develop the use on the
property which is properly permitted by the existing zoning.
It was pointed out that a mini-warehouse development could be constructed
on the property, but the requested waivers of the Anaheim Municipal Code have
been denied.
Mr. Walters questioned how the requested waivers affected the City of
Buena Park, and he noted that in the past, similar waivers have been approved.
Further, he referred to the plot plan indicating that on the perimeter of the
site, it was proposed to construct buildings which would accommodate automobiles,
which in a sense could be termed "garages"; and in the event the project had to
be converted to some other use, all parking requirements could be met. He felt
it was unfair to deny the variance.
Mayor Thom pointed out that each application for variance is considered on
its own merits.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1063 AND 1072: Submitted
by Clarence McNees, to consider request for an extension of time on the uses
granted under said conditional use permit.
75-377
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Conditional Use Permit No. 1063 was approved by the City Planning Commission
in 1968 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. One-year extensions of time were granted by the City Planning
Commission, the last extension to expire October 7, 1975, subject to the property
being cleaned up immediately and further subject to the condition that the
owners of subject property shall dedicate to the State of California Division
of Highways a strip of land along Raster Street and Manchester Avenue for
street widening purposes, as determined to be necessary by the State Division
of Highways and upon said demand of said Division of Highways.
Conditional Use Permit No. 1072 was approved by the City Planning Commission
in 1968 to establish a bus depot in an existing structure at 1711 South Manchester
Avenue. One-year extensions of time were granted~ the last extension to expire
November 4, 1975, subject to the same conditions listed above in connection
with Conditional Use Permit No. 1063.
Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested by
Mayor Thom, and public hearing scheduled April 15, 1975, at the request of the
applicant.
Report dated April 22, 1975, from the Development Services Department
Zoning Division was submitted recommending that Conditional Use Permit No. 1063
be extended for a period of one year retroactive to October 7, 1974, to expire
October 7, 1975, and recommending that Conditional Use Permit No. 1072 be ex-
tended for a period of one year retroactive to November 4, 1974, to expire
November 4, 1975, both actions subject to the following condition: "That
within a period of sixty (60) days from date hereof, the owner(s) of the subject
property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in width
from the centerline of the street along Haster Street, for street widening
purposes, except for that portion from 99.70 feet north of, to 219.78 feet
north of, the centerline of Katella Avenue where such dedication requirements
shall be 50 feet from the centerline of Haster Street. Said dedication shall
also include a 25-foot radius corner return at Katella Avenue".
City Attorney Alan Watts advised that regarding the condition of dedication
for street widening, there is a problem in ~that the ultimate purpose thereof is
for the imminent Haster Street overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway by the
State Division of Highways, and he questioned whether this was a valid condition
when the purpose was for reasons other than the particular use of the property.
Mayor Thom asked if the legal counsel or the applicant wished to address
the City Council.
Marjorie Mize LeGaye, Attorney representing the owner of subject property
addressed the Council noting that the Conditional Use Permits were granted in
1968, subject to yearly review to determine what effect the uses have had on
the properties, whether parking has been adequate, and whether additional
public hearing should be scheduled to determine whether the interim uses should
be continued. Five previous extensions of time have been granted for subject
permit. At the time of the original hearings, the Planning Commission deferred
street widening dedication until further consideration in connection with the
revamping program of the Santa Ana Freeway overcrossing. She pointed out that
the March 3, 1975, staff report to the City Planning Commission indicated that
subject uses have had no apparent deleterious effects on the area, and the
parking appears to be adequate. Said report further notes that the State of
California will require frontage adjacent to Haster Street.
Ms. LeGaye expressed objection to the condition of dedication recommended
by the Zoning Division on the grounds that the dedication is not reasonably
related to the uses for which the permits were granted, as set forth in the
Government Code. She noted that all access to the property is from Manchester
Avenue, and she saw no relation to the widening of Haster Street at this time
in connection with the uses for which the permits were granted. She requested
that the extensions of time be granted without the requirement of dedication.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts pointed out that the April 22, 1975,
report states that in 1968, the City Interdepartmental Committee recommended
dedication along Haster Street, to be provided at that time, in conformance
with the circulation element of the General Plan. However, at the public
75-378
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
hearings the petitioner noted the State's plan for the freeway overcrossing
were in a state of limbo, and the Planning Commission saw no reason to require
dedication, nor street improvement, at that time. In approving Conditional Use
Permit No. 1072, the Planning Commission included a finding that dedication
would eventually have to be required, inasmuch as such dedication was also
required from other property owners when development occurred, and the intent
then was to require dedication at some future time.
Councilman Pebley was of the opinion that if the dedication were not
required at this time, the State of California would acquire the necessary land
and pay the property owner for the land.
Ms. LeGaye advised that the Government Code section to which she previously
referred was the result of an act passed in 1971, and the condition referred to
by Mr. Roberts was required as result of a 1968 action. In answer to question
by Councilman Seymour, she stated that to her knowledge, the owner never objected
to the yearly review of subject conditional use permit.
Ms. LeGaye further pointed out that the owner has not developed subject
properties, but is requesting permission to continue a use which has existed
for several years. She requested a ruling from the City Attorney pertaining to
the relationship of the dedication condition to the use of the properties.
City Engineer's map of the area in question was reviewed at the Council
table,, and discussion held by the City Council. Mr. Maddox noted that according
to the most recent State Department of Highways layout, there would be some
property along Manchester Avenue which would be available for abandonment to
the property owners.
Councilman Seymour read from the staff report dated April 22, 1975, wherein
it was stated that (on October 7, 1968), "The Planning Commission discussed not
requiring any dedication but utilization of the property as it presently existed
until the State presented a concrete plan of their revamping program." Further,
that said report referrred to the public hearing of November 4, 1968, on
Conditional Use Permit No. 1072, wherein the Planning Commission noted that:
"That subject property is part of the commercial-recreation area, and as such,
dedication for street widening purposes along Haster Street would be required;
however, waiver of the required dedication is granted until such time as
redevelopment of or other disposition is made of the property, due to the
nature of the proposed utilization of an existing structure with apparent
temporary uses, and a future revamping program for the Santa Ana Freeway."
Ms. LeGaye was of the opinion that the language "not requiring a dedication
at this time" was not equivalent to imposing a condition of dedication.
Mr. Roberts noted that the uses approved by subject conditional use permits
were initiated shortly after their 1968 approval; further, the dedication
recommended today is consistent with the circulation element of the General
Plan.
Mayor Thom declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-202: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-202 for
adoption, approving the requested extensions of time for Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 1063 and 1072 for a period of one year, retroactive to October 7, 1974,
and November 4, 1974, respectively, subject to the condition recommended by the
Development Services Department, Zoning Division.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING THE RETROACTIVE
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ONE YEAR FROM OCTOBER 7, 1974 AND NOVEMBER 4, 1974 ON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1063 AND 1972, RESPECTIVELY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-202 duly passed and adopted.
75-379
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22; 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
CONTINUED REQUEST - TRACT NOS. 7288 AND 7875: Request for release of bonds for
grading and street improvements, filed in conjunction with Tract Nos. 7288 and
7875, was continued from the meeting of April 15, 1975.
Communication dated April 21, 1975, from Calprop Corporation was submitted
advising that the Rancho Yorba Homeowners' Association had removed its objection
to the release of said bonds, and asking that the City Council approve the
request.
On the recommendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Seymour moved that
the four grading and street improvement bonds be released. Councilman Pebley
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
TAXI CAB PERMIT APPLICATION - ORANGE COUNTY TAX~ INC. (BLUE AND WHITE TRANSPORTA-
TION~ INC.): Application was submitted by Carl P. Giaconelli, President, Blue
and White Transportation, Inc., for permission to operate 20 taxi cabs within
the City of Anaheim. Said application was continued from the meeting of April 15,
1975, at the request of Vincent C. Marks, Secretary/Treasurer.
Communication dated April 17, 1975, from A.~ David Tonti, Attorney, was
submitted (copies furnished each Council Member) advising that a new corporation
has been formed by the president of the company, which is now named Orange
County Taxi, Inc. Also submitted prior to today's meeting was a booklet contain-
ing letters in support of the application.
Mayor Thom asked if the applicant wished to address the City Council.
Mr. Carl P. Giaconelli was present, and in answer to question by Mayor
Thom, he stated that although they had additional letters in support of the
taxi cab operation in Anaheim, they were not in proper form for submission at
this time.
Mayor Thom was of the opinion that the need and necessity for additional
taxi cab service in the City, as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code, had
not been met by subject application. He thereupon moved that subject application
be denied. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. To this motion, Councilman
Sneegas voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED REQUEST - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-13~ TRACT NO. 8783~ APPROVAL OF
SPECIAL RECREATION FACILITY (PELANCONI PARK): Request was continued from the
meetings of March 18 and April 1, 1975, for approval of special recreational
facility on the Rancho Yorba development plan (original request submitted by
Presley of Southern California, Grant Company of California and Calprop Corpor-
ation). '
Communication dated April 18, 1975, from D. H. Hatfield, Attorney represent-
ing Manny Fingerhut, who has replaced Calprop Corporation as one of the developers
involved, was submitted agreeing to participate in the development of the
special recreation facility by dedication of 8.2 acres of land and payment of
park and recreation in-lieu fees.
Report from the City Engineer, dated March 5, 1975, was submitted recommend-
ing that the City Council approve the concept of drainage facilities as shown
on preliminary plans dated March 5, 1975 and authorized the City Engineer to
approve the final construction plans.
City Manager Keith Murdoch referred to a cost projection dated April 22,
1975, prepared by Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director John Collier, and
pointed out that there are several methods of developing the proposed park,
however, no provision has been made for funding that development.
Mr. Bernardo Yorba, one of the original owners of property in the area,
was recognized and in response to questions by Councilman Seymour, he advised
that originally the plan was to develop the park area, using private enterprise,
as a special recreation use such as a golf course or tennis club. This proved
to be completely unfeasible, and the concept was changed to a nature park. The
responsibility for development was undetermined, although the possibility of
combining forces of the owner, the developer, the community, and the City was
discussed.
75-380
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Thom left the Council Chamber. (5:39 P.M.)
Mr. Yorba further advised that during discussions with Mr. Collier, it was
determined that the uses of a complete nature park are limited, and that an
open, community park would be more beneficial.
Mayor Thom returned to the Council Chamber. (5:41 P.M.)
Mr. Yorba related that at one time, Calprop Corporation had agreed to
maintain the park area as open space; that he had then requested additional
time to explore the possibility of a nature park development, and bring the
concept back for Council approval. He noted there has been considerable acquisi-
tion by the City of land for park purposes in the canyon area, however, no
operating parks have been developed, and he requested that the park fees be
designated for development of Pelanconi Pa£k.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether the area in question was the same park
once mentioned for a botanic garden.
Mr. Yorba replied in the affirmative. He reported that the proposed park
was named after Mrs. Pelanconi, who is the 96-year old great granddaughter of
Jose Antonio Yorba, original owner of the property in question.
Five exhibits were posted on the east wall of the Council Chamber, one
illustrating the proposed park plot plan, and the others depicting the proposed
view from various locations within the park area. Mr. Murdoch referred to the
letter dated February 26, 1975, from Presley of Southern California, Grant
Company of California, and Calprop Corporation, which outlined their proposal
as follows:
1. The Robert H. Grant Corporation agrees to complete its obligation for
improvement of the drainage course in accordance with plans, specifications and
profiles which have been or will be approved by the City Engineer of Anaheim.
The present plans, as discussed with the Parks and Recreation Department,
include drop structures (telephone poles or the like across the stream bed in
three locations), rip rapping as required along the bends in the channel, clean
up of the area immediately downstream of the outlet structure in Lot 73, Tract
7569 and the 72" RCP and outlet and inlet structures under Avenida Margarita.
Because of the wish of all parties to keep the area as natural as possible,
this appears to be the most widely accepted method of improvement of a drainage
course.
2. Calprop Corporation agrees to dedicate approximatley 8.2 acres of land
with a value in excess of $120,000. Said dedication shall be in lieu of the
park and recreation fees.
3. Subject to the purchase of the property referred to as Tentative Tract
Number 8783 by Presiey of Southern California and the development of same,
Presley of Southern California agrees as follows:
a. Dedicate approximately 2.5 acres of land described as the natural
slope areas of Lots 13, 14 and 25 through 35 of Tentative Tract Number 8783 for
additional use as the Special Recreation Area.
b. Improve Avenida Margarita from the boundary of Tentative Tract
Number 8783 to the westerly boundary of Tract Number 8404 with curb, gutter,
sidewalks and street paving; provided that (i) the cost of stabilizing and
landscaping the slope adjacent to the Special Recreation Area will be offset
against the park and recreation fees; (ii) that at such time as the property
adjacent to Avenida Margarita is developed, Presley of Southern California
would expect to be reimbursed for a prorated share of the improvements; (iii)
that the park and recreation fees paid by Presley of Southern California would
be used solely for the improvement of the Special Recreation Area; and (iv)
that the construction of the improvements to the Special Recreation Area would
commence at the time of Presley of Southern California's payment of the park
and recreation fees and be completed within three years.
75-381
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Murdoch commented on said proposal, pointing out that the dedication
of approximately 2.5 acres of land by Presley of Southern California involves
property which is actually a slope area adjacent to the park site; that he was
somewhat concerned about Section 3 (b) (iii) designating that park and recreation
fees paid by Presley would be used solely for the improvement of the special
recreation area; and the last Section 3 (b) (iv) stating that construction of
improvements would be completed within three years of the time Presley of
Southern California made payment of park and recreation fees posed the question
of whether the City could meet that type of commitment. After all facets of
the foregoing proposal are considered, the City would be left with an obligation
of nearly $400,000 for development of the park.
With reference to the cost projection by Mr. Collier, Mr. Murdoch noted
that alternatives for construction costs which would involve C.E.T.A. work
crews might cause a problem as there is no way of knowing if C.E.T.A. funding
will continue. Figures listed on the projection are costs in addition to what
is being proposed by the developers.
Mr. Murdoch further related that the letter received from Mr. Fingerhut's
Attorney assumes the obligation which Calprop Corporation stipulated in the
letter of February 26, 1975, i.e., the dedication of 8.2 acres, plus the addi-
tional payment of park and recreation in-lieu fees at the time the building
permits are issued. He was of the opinion that the stipulation was acceptable
if the projected amount of the fees were omitted.
Councilman Seymour stated it seems that the original concept had changed
significantly. He read from the Minutes of the January 19, 1971 public hearing
on Conditional Use Permit No. 1202, which was granted by Resolution No. 71R-26,
subject to the conditions that the special recreation area designated in the
plan would be developed as a pitch-and-putt golf course, or some other recrea-
tion use as approved by the City Council; and further, that its maintenance
shall be assured by contract or as otherwise approved by the City Attorney. In
his opinion, this condition indicated that the owner or the developer would pay
for the development of that pitch-and-putt golf course or other recreational
use, and after development had taken place, further discussion could be held as
to the responsibility for maintenance.
Mr. Yorba pointed out that the area was set aside as open space at the
insistence of the City Council. He reiterated the rejection of the golf course
and tennis club concepts and a proposal to study the feasibility of a nature
park, which met with the approval of the City Council. When the matter was
brought back for further consideration in December, theY were asked to work
with Mr. Collier to prepare a more precise plan of development and an outline
of the proposals by the developers.
Councilman Pebley left the meeting. (5:58 P.M.)
City Attorney Alan Watts called attention to a potential conflict, wherein
Presley of Southern California indicates park and recreation in-lieu fees would
be used solely for the improvement of the special recreation area, inasmuch as
the City is currently negotiating with owners of land on the north side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of the Presley property, and the in-lieu fees are
included in said negotiations.
Mr. Yorba was of the opinion that it would be beneficial for the City to
accept the proposal of the developer for this unique park, and he noted that he
was personally dedicating some of the park land.
Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that one of the justifications for
the requested density of development in the area had been the provisiOn of this
open space, and the way it now appears, instead of giving something, the develop-
ers are asking the City to pay a large sum of money in order to develop the
park which was originally promised.
Mr. James McCarthy of VTN Consolidated, Inc., came forward and advised that
the value of the property proposed for park dedication would far exceed the con-
tributions from the City. He noted the costs of drainage and street improvements
proposed to be paid for by the Grant Company, and the value of the land being
dedicated, in addition to the payment of the in-lieu fees. The additional 2.5
acres of slope area was requested by the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Depart-
ment.
75-382
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Fred Wilson, representing Presley of Southern California, was recognized
and noted that they had been meeting with members of the City staff for four
months, and as a result, the plans exhibited today were formulated. He went to
the exhibits and indicated the boundaries of the Presley property, and reiterated
their portion of the proposal contained in the February 26, 1975 letter. He
noted that Presley Company was under no obligation to improve the street as
proposed, although he believed that it was mentioned that one-half of said
street would be the responsibility of the City. Prior to approval of the Final
Map of Tract No. 8783, he proposed to submit a plan of development of the area
for consideration by the City Council.
Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that by dedicating the additional
land, the Presley Company would be eliminating a slope maintenance problem. At
the time the tract was approved, it did not conform to the new grading ordinance
which was to be adopted soon thereafter. As an additional step towards resolving
the issue, he suggested that the City provide all labor for development of the
park.
Mr. Murdoch stated that the park concept has been considerably expanded
from the original proposal. He was of the opinion that the suggestion that the
City provide all labor if materials for development were supplied by others was
valid and suggested that the various parties might consider the possibility of
providing the additional material costs, which would amount to less than
$200,000.
on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, further con-
sideration of the request for approval of the special recreational facility was
continued two weeks (May 6, 1975), to allow further consideration by the parties
involved. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - WALL CONSTRUCTION: Request of John Krajacic was submitted for construc-
tion of a block wall at City expense, in connection with the Ball Road Street
Widening Project, for protection of property located at the northeast corner of
Walnut Street and Ball Road. Also submitted was report from the City Engineer
recommending that said request be denied.
Mr. Krajacic briefly addressed the Council describing previous accidents
and damage to property at the location in question.
Councilman Sneegas moved that the requested construction of the wall be
denied, as recommended by the City Engineer. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1479 AND 1480 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Request was sub-
mitted by Jay Kingry, District Representative, Pacific Outdoor Advertising Com-
pany, for an extension of time to permit the continued use of an existing bill-
board at the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard (Conditional
Use Permit No. 1479) and to permit the continued use of two billboards at the
northeast corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard (Conditional Use Permit No.
1480). Also submitted were reports from the City Engineer and the Development
Services Department recommending that extensions of time not be granted inasmuch
as specified time limits on subject conditional use permits have expired.
Mr. Jay Kingry, Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company, 1740 Narva Street,
Los Angeles, addressed the City Council indicating that although subject condi-
tional use permits expired April 1, 1975, his request was dated March 27, 1975;
that there has been no physical change on subject properties, and he requested
approval of subject extensions of time.
The City Attorney counseled inasmuch as subject conditional use permits
have expired, new petitions must be filed with the Development Services Depart-
ment and if the petitioner is processing new permits in good faith, he will not
be required to remove the signs, pending actions on said new permits.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request
for extensions of time to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1479 and 1480 was denied.
Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
75-383
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 140: Environmental Impact Report
No. 140 was certified by the City Council April 1, 1975, for the application by
the City of Anaheim for a grant under Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974. Subsequently, comments have bean received from the
Air Resources Board and the State Department of Parks and Recreation.
Report of Development Services Department was submitted recommending that
the City Clerk be directed to incorporate said comments, and responses thereto,
into Environmental Impact Report No. 140, and transmit copies to the commenting
agencies.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-203: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-203
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ACCEPTING
COMMENTS TO EIR NO. 140 RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION; AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY CLERK TO INCORPORATE SAID COMMENTS AND RESPONSES THERETO INTO EIR NO. 140.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-203 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (6:35 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-204 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NOS. 599 AND 844: In accordance
with recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Thom offered Resolution
No. 75R-204 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PRO-
POSAL 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 NECES-
SARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE PEARSON
PARK AMPHITHEATRE IM]PROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NOS. 599 AND
844. (Ron Jones, Inc. - $54,200.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: t~aywood, Sneegas and Thom
NOES; COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-204 duly passed and adopted.
FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 8683: Developer, Wilshire Woods, Inc.; tract located on the
west side of Pearl Street, north of Wilshire Avenue, containing one RM-1200
zoned lot.
The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map
conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved, and public
improvements for said tract have been accepted by the City of Anaheim; no addi-
tional bonds or fees are required as condition of approval of Tract No. 8683.
On the recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Thom moved that
Final Map, Tract No. 8683 be approved. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion.
To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". Councilman Seymour temporarily
absent and Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
75-384
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
OPEN ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES - COMPLAINT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1373):
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts referred to petition dated November 4, 1974,
signed by 11 residents in the vicinity of The Open Road Recreational Vehicle
Sales Facility at 866 South West Street, protesting noise emanating from the
public address system at that location. Also noted was report from the Develop-
ment Services Department dated April 22, 1975, prepared as result of additional
complaints received. Ne advised that after receipt of the petition, representa-
tives of the City Attorney's Office and the Development Services Department met
with officers of the company in an effort to resolve the problem without bring-
ing it to the City Council; however, the residents are now requesting consider-
ation by the Council as the matter apparently has not been resolved.
Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber. (6:37 P.M.)
Mr. Roberts thereupon reviewed the background of the complaints, as outlined
in the Development Services Department report, and advised that the music
coming from the public address system seemed to be the most objectionable
noise.
Mr. Eugene Sumbero, 838 Aspen Street, one of those who signed the petition,
came forward to report that the noise from the public address system at subject
location has recently been continuing on a 24-hour per day basis and has been
a problem for nearly 18 months. He stated that other neighbors in the vicinity
are upset about the noise and requested relief.
in response to question by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Roberts advised that as
condition of Conditional Use Permit No. 1373, granting subject use, lighting on
the property was regulated. Staff has been working together with the business
to modify the lighting so it will not reflect onto neighboring residences.
This conditional use permit did not regulate noise in connection with the use
of the property.
Mr. Joe Sofa was recognized and advised he had been the General Manager of
the business for approximately seven weeks, and he had no knowledge of the
noise complaints until this week. He described the controls regulating the
high fidelity system and related that the business closes at 9:00 p.m., and
with the possible exception of a remaining customer and the manager or a sales
person, no one is on the premises after 9:00 p.m. except the guard, and the
public address system is supposed to be turned off by that hour. He stated
they had no wish to cause discomfort to anyone and indicated they would do
whatever is necessary to remedy the situation noting that it might be possible
to discontinue the music, however, the public address system is a necessity.
The City Council indicated if the music were discontinued, the problem
might be resolved; Messrs. Sumbero and Sofa agreed.
No further action was taken at this time.
TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE REQUEST - TRACT NO. 8679: Communication dated April 17,
1975, was submitted from Lewis R. Schmid, President, Schmid Development, Inc.,
requesting permission to temporarily locate a trailer near the entrance to
Tract No. 8679 north of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Anaheim Hills Road, for the
purpose of sales, security, and initial construction office at said tract.
Also submitted were photographs of the trailer and a rendering of the tract
illustrating the proposed location of the trailer.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the foregoing
request was approved in accordance with photographs presented. Councilman
Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
OFFER TO PURCHASE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY - CARDINAL PROPERTIES: City Manager Keith A.
Murdoch reported on offer by Cardinal Properties to purchase City-owned lot
located on the west side of Euclid Street, south of property owned by Harold
Sewell (formerly designed as a fire station site). He briefed the terms of
said offer as listed in communication from Cardinal Properties dated April 22,
1975, advising that the company's earlier offer had been revised to be contingent
upon buyer's and seller's approval of the appraisal amount established by a
member of the American Institute of Appraisers, the price to be determined by
the appraisal.
75-385
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Sneegas moved that the City Manager be authorized to proceed as
outlined, with the appraisal fee to be paid by the buyer in the event of a
successful sale, and by the City, if the sale is not consummated. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF MATERIAL - IRON PIPE: The City Manager reported on informal bids
received for the purchase of 1200 feet of 24-inch ductile iron pipe for the
Water Division and recommended acceptance of the low bid, that of Pacific
States Cast Iron Pipe, Los Angeles, in the amount of $26,807.40, including tax.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, purchase
was authorized as recommended. MOTION CARRIED.
LINCOLN AVENUE MEDIAN OPENING; The City Manager submitted for review at the
Council table plans for the proposed access opening in the median strip on
Lincoln Avenue between Euclid and Loara Street. He advised that a tentative
agreement has been reached to go ahead with the project, the City to provide
the cost of landscaping, if the property owners would pay the cost of the
change in the construction plans. Ail owners along this section of Lincoln
Avenue have agreed to pay their proportionate share of the costs, however,
those who own property on the other corners have no interest in participating,
as they feel there is no advantage for them. He suggested that inasmuch as
there would be no landscaping required in the area of the median opening, the
City might apply the amount saved in landscaping to off-set the amount which
otherwise would be paid by the non-participating owners, in the estimated
amount of $4,700.
At the conclusion of brief Council discussion, by general consent, the
City Manager was instructed to proceed with negotiations as proposed, with the
intent that the City would be willing to pay one-half of the approximate $4,700
which would be the allocation for the non-participating property owners.
ORDINANCE NO. 3415: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3415 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3392 AND ENACTING A
NEW ORDINANCE IN ITS PLACE PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No parking any time -
La Palma Avenue, north and south sides near West Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3415 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour left the meeting. (7:05 P.M.)
ORDINANCE NO. 3416: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3416 for adoption.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-58 - RS-7200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3416 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3417: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3417 for adoption.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30 (5) - RS-7200)
75-386
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apr.il 22~ .1975~ 1:30 P.M.
The foregoing ordinance failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: K~ywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
By general consent of the City Council~ adoption of Ordinance No. 3417 was
continued to April 29, 1975 for a full City Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 3418: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3418 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. (PERS)
ORDINANCE NO. 3419: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3419 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION
14.32.160 AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 14.32.160 IN ITS PLACE RELATING TO PARKING.
(No parking between the hours of Three A.M. and Six A.M., streets and City
parking lots designated)
ORDINANCE NO. 3420: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3420 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-25 - RS-7200)
ANAHEIM VISITORS AND CONVENTION BUREAU - JOINT MEETING: Pursuant to report by
the City Manager, the City Council indicated their willingness to meet with the
Anaheim Visitors and Convention Bureau on Tuesday, May 13, 1975, 10:30 a.m. in
the Convention Center Buena Park Room.
ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - INFORMAL MEETING: Pursuant to recommendation by
the City Manager, the City Council indicated their willingness to meet infor-
mally with members of the Orange Unified School District Board of Trustees in
the near future to discuss the possible participation in financing a school
facility, using redevelopment funds.
PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT - GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Inasmuch as two members
of the City Council were absent, it was determined that action to establish a
Golf Course Advisory Commission be deferred one week to April 29, 1975.
In response to question by Councilwoman Kaywood, City Attorney Alan Watts
reported that he used the term "Commission" in accordance with language used in
the Anaheim City Charter, however, the proposed resolution to establish the
Commission refers to the fact that the Commission would not necessarily be
permanent.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-205: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-205 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
MELODYLAND AUTHORIZING MELODYLAND GUARDS TO DIRECT TRAFFIC AT THE CORNER OF
CLEMENTINE AND KATELLA AVENUE. (Additional intersection added)
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-205 duly passed and adopted.
,m
75-387
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT - COUNTY OF ORANGE: Mr. Watts reported that
in March of this year, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the
City's agreement for the provision of health services by the County of Orange,
however, in the interim between the City and County actions, the County of
Orange had determined to provide for disease vector control services to be
performed by the Orange County Mosquito Abatement District. Therefore, the
Board of Supervisors has sent the agreement back to the City for approval, with
the addition of "excluding vector control services".
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
amendment to agreement for health services was approved. Councilmen Seymour
and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINES AND FORFEITURES DISPOSITION - MUNICIPAL COURT LEVIES: Mr. Watts briefed
his memorandum dated April 22, 1975 (copies furnished each Council Member),
pertaining to the distribution of fines and forfeitures to the City of Anaheim.
On-the recommendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Sneegas moved that
the staff be authorized to commence negotiations with the County of Orange
regarding the distribution percentage of fines and forfeitures levied by the
Municipal Court for arrests or violations occurring in the City. Councilman
Thom seconded the motion. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-206: Pursuant to authority granted by the Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-206 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO.
15 ANNEXATION. (Uninhabited)
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-206 duly passed and adopted.
FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT - BICENTENNIAL CEREMONIES: Application filed by Astro
Pyrotechnics for permit to allow public fireworks display on Claudina Street
between Broadway and Lincoln Avenue in connection with the Bicentennial Accredi-
tation Ceremonies, April 25, 1975, at 3:10 p.m., was submitted and granted as
requested, on motion by Councilman Sneegas seconded by Councilman Thom.
Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-207: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-207 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND AN EASEMENT DEED IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELOCATION OF A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON TOWER DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORANGE FREEWAY. (Edison tower C.P. No.
311 and easement deed in favor of Edison being designated as Deed No. 69330-1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneega8 and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-207 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with'the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
75-388
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
1. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits were granted subject to
the recomendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit for one juke box, one cigarette machine, and
one shuffle board game to be located at Ace's Grill, 309 North Manchester
Avenue. (Roy L. Kelley, Jones Music Company, Applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit for one star pool amusement game and one
boomerang amusement game to be located at Porky's Buffet & Lounge, 130 West
Katella Avenue. (James T. Moore, Rowe Service Company, Inc., Applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Permit for one football table or table soccer, for
two to four players, to be located at Billy Jack's, 2880 East Miraloma Avenue.
(Jeffrey R. Rogers, International Oceanics Ent., Applicant)
2. WESTRIDGE PUMPING STATION, WORK ORDER NO. 2066, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: On
report and recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Order No. 1 to Work
Order No. 2066, in the amount of $2,377 was authorized, resulting in an amended
contract price of $240,109.
3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Application of Southern
California Gas Company: (1) for authority to adjust its rates as necessary to
reflect its participation in a funding agreement to secure certain rights to
Alaskan Natural Gas; (2) for authorization to give its consent to an assignment
to Atl.antic Richfield by Pacific Lighting Gas Development of certain rights
pursuant to an agreement related to the funding agreement - Notice of filing of
application and Notice of hearing.
b. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - March 26, 1975.
c. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of February, Electrical
Division and for the month of March, Building and Engineering Divisions and
Police Department.
d. City of Gardena - Minute Resolution - Re: Bilingual Courts Act.
e. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County - Minutes - April 3, 1975.
f. State Solid Waste Management Board - Regulations for the implementation
of Government Code Section 66783.1 (SB 1797 of 1974) concerning the siting of
solid waste facilities and amendments to the guidelines for preparing county
solid waste management plans.
g. City of Westminster - Resolution No. 1656 - opposing legislation which
would create the Southern California Association of Governments by statute and
mandate its membership.
h. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - March 20, 1975.
Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims against the City were denied and
referred to the City's insurance carrier, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. Claim submitted by James C. Hopkins for damage sustained to vehicle
purportedly as a result of collision with City vehicle, on or about April 8,
1975.
b. Claim submitted by Vern Ross for reimbursement of towing and storage
fee for automobile, purportedly as a result of actions of the Anaheim Police
Department, on or about March 29, 1975.
Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM: It was moved by Councilwoman Kaywood that permis-
sion to present late claim submitted by William C. Darden, Attorney, on behalf
of Joseph R. Giamboi for purported property damage sustained on or about
December 4, 1974, be denied as recommended by the City Attorney's Office.
Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-208 AND 75R-209: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 75R-208 and 75R-209 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
75-389
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-208 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Host International, Inc.; Kilroy Industries; Kilroy Industries General Auto-
mation, Inc.; Donald P. Parke, et ux.; John E. McConnell, et ux.; Frederick H.
Armsbry, et al.; Paul A. Yonaka, et ux.; Catherine A. White; Kenneth Joe Quane,
et ux.; Keith D. Spatz, et ux.; Theodore Todoroff, et ux.; Christian Center
Church of O.C., Inc.; Charles K. Patterson, et ux.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-209 - ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT,
TO WIT: SLURRY SEAL APPLICATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
100-421-241-02; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICA-
TIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS' FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - May 15, 1975, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-208 and 75R-209 duly passed and
adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held March 31, 1975, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council information and consideration:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, 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 8)
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS: The City Council
ratified the determination of the Director of Development Services that the
proposed activities fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the
City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact
report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an
environmental impact report:
Conditional Use Permit No. 1523
Variance No. 2686
Conditional Use Permit No. 1527
Variance No. 2688
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS: The City Council
finds that these projects 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. 1525
Proposal by the Community Center Authority to construct a concrete parking
structure in the west parking lot of the Anaheim Convention Center.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1523: Submitted by Carl J. Heinz to permit a
drive-through restaurant on ML zoned property located on the west side of State
College Boulevard, north of Ball Road, with Code waiver of:
a. Minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning 'Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-65 granted
said permit for 33 parking spaces, subject to conditions.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1525: Submitted by Richard E. Ostroot, to
permit a church on CL zoned property on the north side of Ball Road, east of
Nutwood Street, with Code waiver of:
75-390
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
a. Required tree screen.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-66, granted
said permit in part, subject to conditions.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1527: Submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Gene A.
Albin, Sr., to permit the expansion of an existing board and care facility on
RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, east
of Mountain View Avenue, with Code waiver of:
a. Minimum number of parking spaces in a garage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-67, granted
said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2686: Submitted by George Wommer, to allow a pet rooster' in
the RS-7200 Zone; property located on the north side of Clifpark Way, west of
State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of:
a. Permitted poultry.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-68, granted
said variance for a period of two years, subject to one condition.
7. VARIANCE NO. 2688: Submitted by Theodore and Deanna Todoroff to establish
a transmission and automobile repair work facility at a service station site on
CG zoned property located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Anaheim
Boulevard, with Code waiver of:
a. Permitted uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-69, granted
said variance for a period of two years, subject to conditions.
8. TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1142: Submitted by Dick Taormina,
President, Anaheim Disposal Company, requesting termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1142 which was granted by the City Planning Commission to permit the
expansion of an existing non-conforming transit and transportation equipment
storage yard and the future establishment of an enclosed restaurant; property
located at the northwest corner of Blue Gum and Coronado Streets.
The City Planning Commission denied the request to terminate Conditional
Use Permit No. 1142; provided, however, that the property owner stipulated to
bringing the subject property into conformance with the conditions of approval
of said use permit within 90 days, including that an acceptable screen wall
shall be provided along the four property lines; that the required landscaping
shall be installed permanently; that items considered to be "junk" shall not be
stored on subject property either by the property owner or the tenants, as
stipulated to by the petitioner; and that the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the
City shall be instructed and directed to issue citations for any non-conforming
conditions on the subject property after June 29, 1975.
Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM - REQUEST~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: An application for a grading permit has been filed for the construc-
tion of four single-family homes on four one-acre lots located at 4771-7491
Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning at their meeting held March 31, 1975, recommended that
subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of.subject property
within Peralta Hills and recalled the denial of Variance No. 2649, which was
requested to establish four RE zoned lots with a waiver of minimum lot size on
one parcel. Subsequently, the property owner has negotiated with an adjacent
neighbor and was able to purchase additional property, lying within the street
area, sufficient to bring the gross area of the substandard lot to one acre.
75-391
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
At the conclusion of brief discussion, Councilman Thom moved that Council
consideration of the requested negative declaration for the grading permit on
subject property be continued one week, April 29, 1975, for a full City Council;
and that the property owners in the vicinity of subject property be notified
that this matter was again to be considered. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520: Owner, Anaheim Hills, Inc.; property located on the
east side of Hidden Canyon Road and on the north side of Avenida De Santiago,
southeasterly of the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road, and
contains 17 proposed RS-HS-22,000 lots.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, action on
Tentative Tract No. 8520 was continued to be considered in conjunction with
Environmental Impact Report No. 111, Reclassification No. 73-74-28 and Variance
No. 2566. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8873: Owner, Michael J. Cibellis, et al.; property located
at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Quintana Drive, and contains
21 proposed RS-7200 (SC) lots.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, action on
Tentative Tract No. 8873 was continued to be considered in conjunction with
Environmental Impact Report No. 149 and Variance No. 2674. Councilmen Seymour
and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED RECISION - RESOLUTION NO. 75R-145: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that
the wording of Resolution No. 75R-145, opposing the creation of mandatory
regional governmental agencies and opposing the grant of taxing power to such
agencies, did not accomplish what she felt was the intent of the City Council,
and was too broadly written. She thereupon offered a resolution rescinding
Resolution No. 75R-145.
The foregoing resolution failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley
By general consent of the City Council, action on the foregoing resolution
was deferred one week, to be considered by a full Council.
U. S. POSTAL SERVICE - NEW MAIL DELIVERY POLICY: Councilwoman Kaywood called
attention to notice received by the City Manager from the Anaheim Postmaster
giving notice of a change in the policy of the U. S. Postal Service regarding
mail delivery in residential areas. The change will provide that all residential
mail delivery extended to new areas will be made either by curb-line delivery
or central point delivery.
It was determined that the matter would be brought before the City Council
April 29, 1975, by the City Manager, together with suggestions for a possible
formal objection.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:37 P.M.
Signed
Deputy City Clerk