1975/08/2675-770
City ~!1, An-helm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26,. 1975m 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: INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William Griffith
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linde D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS DIRECTOR: John J. Collier
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 1:30 F.M. and welcomed
those in attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION; Reverend Will Smith of tile Melodyland Hotline Center 8ave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
SUGGESTION PROGRAM AWARDS: Mayor Thom presented the following awards to
employees for beneficial suggestions submitted:
1. Steve Tokai, Subdivisions Section of the Engineering Division received
his sixth award, a $25 savings bond, for his suggestion of printin§ the zip
code of City facilities in the employees' phone book.
2. George Jessup of Storm Drain and Sewer Section of the Engineering
Division, received a plaque for suggesting that Engineering plans be referenced
to the State Coordinate System for easy cross referencing.
3. Captain Thomas W. Kresal of the Anaheim Fire Department received a
plaque for his suggestion that fire engines carry a l~-lnch hose line pack for
faster extinguishing of trash fires.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held July 8 and
July 22, 1975, were approved, as corrected (typographical errors) on motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the readi~ in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the
reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount of $632,088.46, in accordance with the 1975-76 Budget, were approved.
NOTICE OF RESIGNATION - JOHN J. COLLIER: Mr. John Collier read a letter dated
AugUst 25, 1975,' addressed to the City Manager, indicating hl~ intent to resign
his position as Director of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department,
effective October 17, 1975, in order to accept a position as administrator of
Region 10, a six-county regional government association, centered in Montrose,
Colorado.
Mayor Thom stated that he felt Mr. Collier has performed an outstanding
job during his tenure with the City of Anaheim, and that he would be sorry to
see him leave.
RESOIHTION NO. 75R-454 - APPROVING REIMBURSEMEIC AGREEMENT - ANNEXATION EXPENSES:
(Relating oto ammexation proceedings before the Local A~ency Formation
Commission) Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-454 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
75-771
City ttall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August Z6, 1975~ 1;30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE~CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A PROCEDURE
AND FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMED~ COVERING REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FOR COSTS INCURRED IN THE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
RELATING TO ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION.
(Annexation filing and processing fees and environmental impact report fees)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and ThOm
NOES: COUNCIL M~MBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL M~BERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-454 duly passed and adopted.
AUTHORIZATION - DEPARTMENTAL NAME CHANGES: Mr. William Griffith reported on the
recommended name changes for two City Departments, said changes to be effected
at this time on a working basis only, recognizing these would not be legal name
changes. He indicated that when the Arthur Young & Company submits final
reports on organizational changes in the City, the names would be formalized by
an ordinance proposed for adoption by the City Council. The reason for the
informal arrangement would be to allow sufficient lead time for departments to
utilize all current printed material and avoid reprinting at the time of formal
name change.
Mr. Griffith reported that the two name changes proposed would be to
change Redevelopment Department to the Community Development Department and to
change Development Services Department to the Planning Department. These
changes have been reviewed by the City Manager and staff who concur with the
recommendation. He advised that there will be a subsequent re-definition of
duties between the two departments.
In response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Griffith reported that there will
be no cost incurred by the City as a result of the proposed name changes.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
City Council approved the proposed name changes to the Community Development
Department and Planning Department as requested on a working basis only.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-455 - AGREEMENT - CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL: Councilman
~ ii i mi i i ii , mll~ I II I
Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-455 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY PATROL RELATING TO ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
CLASSES FOR AN ANAHEIM POLICE OFFICER AT THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ACADEMY.
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-455 duly passed and adopted.
REPORT Kg COMPLAINT AND rETITION - DUH~ING ACTIVITIES; (South of N0hl Ranch
Road, east of Spyglass Way) Mr. Frank Lowry reported in connection with
complaint and petitions submitted at the meeting of August 19, 1975, regarding
dumping of construction materials and the presence of excessive amounts of
weeds on property owned by the Grant Corporation of California, that said firm
has already rendered access to subject property impossible by blocking the
roadway, and have agreed to post restrictions against dumping. They have
further agreed to eliminate the weeds and are working on that problem
currently. The Grant Corporation has further promised the City Attorney's
Office that they will secure a tractor to handle the fill dirt which has been
placed on this site illegally, reportedly not by the Grant Corporation.
75-772
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August. 26m 197~m 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Lowry reported that Mr. Walp, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, is
currently working with the Anaheim Polide Department to effect the removal of
the three abandoned vehicles under the Cityts abandoned vehicle regulations.
Mr. Lowry advised that he would follow up on these activities during the coming
weeks.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-456 - OPPOSING JOINT USE AVIATION PURPOSES: (Los Alamitos
Naval Air Station) Mrs. Roberts presented communication from the City of
Cypress together with a copy of their Resolution No. 1636 urging the Orange
County Board of Supervisors to rescind their action applying for Joint use
aviation purposes at the Los Alamitos Naval Air Station and urging the
Department of Defense to reject said request.
Councilwoman Kay~ood stated that this resolution is in line with the
position previously taken by the Anaheim City Council. Councilwoman Kaywood
thereupon offered Resolution No. 75R-456 for'adoption, embodying similar
language to that of Resolution No. 1636 of the City of Cypress.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF
THE CITY OF CYPRESS RESOLUTION NO. 1636 URGING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO RESCIND THEIR ACTION APPLYING FOR JOINT AVIATION USE AT THE LOS
ALAMITOS NAVAL AIR STATION.
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-456 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-457 - WATER MAIN REIMBURS~iENT AGREEMENT: (Alexander Haagen
Shopping Center Development) Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-457
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ALEXANDER PLAAGEN SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT TO
REIMBURSE SAID DEVELOPER FOR INSTALLING 363 FEET OF WATER MAIN AS PART OF THE
SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE AREA OF AVENIDA MARGARITA SOUTH OF SANTA
ANA CANYON ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL M~"/BERS: None
ABSE17r: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 75R-457 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman
Pebley, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
'Calendar Agenda:
1. C_LAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to -
the insurance carrier:
a. Claim submitted by Spire's Management, Inc. for damage sustained to
property at 1673 West Ball Road, purportedly as a result of actions of trash
pickup truck, on or about April 9, 1975.
b. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Walter Williams for property damage
purportedly sustained as a result of electric power failure, on or about May 8,
1975.
75-773
City H.all~ Anaheim; California -..COUNCIL MINUTES - AuGust 26! 19751 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Glenn E. Hudson for injuries sustained purportedly
as a result of traffic accident resulting from improperly functioning traffic
signals, on or about July 14, 1975.
d. Claim submitted by Lon, Greg and Tami Blankenship for damages and
emotional distress purportedly sustained as a result of death of decedent
resulting from failure of City of Anaheim to provide adequate protection for
pedestrian traffic, on or about July 24, 1975.
e. Claim submitted by Doris L. Kirkpatrick for loss purportedly sustained
as a result of electrical failure, on or about August 3 and 4, 1975.
f. Claim submitted by Susan Gregg for loss and damages purportedly
sustained as a result of power failure, on or about August 4, and 5, 1975.
g. Claim submitted by Sandi Swindle for loss purportedly sustained as a
result of power failure, on or about August 6, 1975.
h. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Leo Galvin for loss purportedly
sustained as a result of power failure, on or about August 5 and 6, 1975.
i. Claim submitted by Allen Ratzliff for loss purportedly sustained as a
result of power failure, on or about August 4 and 5, 1975.
j. Claim submitted by Celia Alteeman for loss purportedly sustained as a
result of power failure by City of Anaheim, on or about August 4 and 5, 1975.
k. Claim submitted by S. K. Riazi for loss purportedly sustained as a
result of power failure, on or about August 4 and 5, 1975.
1. Claim submitted by Dianne Wagner for loss purportedly sustained as a
result of power failure, on or about August 4, 1975.
m. Claim submitted by Ms. Rebecca Ramsey for loss purportedly sustained
as a result of power failure, on or about August 4 and 5, 1975.
n. Claim submitted by William P. Atha for loss purportedly sustained as a
result of power failure, on or about August 4, 1975.
o. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Molea for loss purportedly
sustained as a result of power failure, on or about August 4 and 5, 1975.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County - Minutes - July
23, 1975.
b. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County - Minutes - August 7,
1975.
c. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - July 28, 1975.
d. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of July, 1975, for the
Customer Service and Building Divisions.
e. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - July 17, 1975.
f. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County:
Westminster Resolution No. 1681
Tustin Resolution No. 75-54
g. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - July 17, 1975.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-458 THROUGH 75R-461: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution
'Nos.' 75R-458 ih~ough'75R-461, b~th inclusive, for adoption in accordance with
the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member,
and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-458 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc.; Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc.; Galerie
Homeowners Association; Anaheim Housing; William L. and Jean M. Mauerhan;
Curci-Turner Company; Checkmate & Trailer Coach Assn'n.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-459 - WORK ORDER NOS. 738-B AND 849: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFOR-
MANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE BALL ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NOS. 738-B and 849, A.H.F.P. NO. 676; (E. L. White Company, Inc.)
75-774
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim) California_- COUNCIL MINUTE~ - August ..~.6! 1975! 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-460 - 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 CONTRACT II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-
241-02; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF: AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT IN ACCORDANCE WI~lt SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, gTC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLEP. K TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - September 18, 1975, Z;00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-4§1 - WORK ORDER NO. 1255: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANANEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING T~AT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVF2tENT TO
WIT: THE MOHLER DRIVE AND COUNTRY MILL ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1255; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - September
25, 1975, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL M~[BERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-45~ through 75R-461, both inclu-
sive, duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNIN.G. COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their, meeting held August 4, 1975, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council information and consideration.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, 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 EXE~fPTION: The Director of
DeveloPment Services Department has determined that the proposed activities in
the following listed zoning applications fall within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 1 or 11 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. 1554
Variance No. 2726
2. ENVI. R0~LMENTAL .IMPACT .REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The City Planning
commission recommends to the City Council that the subject projects in the
following listed zoning applications be declared exempt from the requirement'to
prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act:z
Variance No. 2720
Variance No. 2725
3. VARIANCE NO. 2720: Submitted by Joseph M. Anton to construct a specialty
market on CL zoned property located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue
amd Harbor Boulevard, with Code waivers of:
a. Permitted cave projection.
b. Minimum number of parking spaces.
c. Maximum building height.
d. Minimum structural setback.
e. Minimum setback landscaping.
f. Required masonry wall.
75-775
Hall! Anaheim; California - CouNciL MINUTES - Au~.ust..26.! 19.7.5, I:30...P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-168, granted
said variance, in part, waiver "f" having been eliminated, subject to condi-
tions.
4. GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1554: Submitted by Crocker National Bank, to
permit a church meeting hall in the CH Zone, on property located on the south
side of Lincoln Avenues east of Helena Street, with Code waiver of;
a. Minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-170, granted
said conditional use permit £or a period of one year, expiring August 4, 1976,
subject to conditions.
5. VARIANCE NO. 2725: Submitted by Robert F. and Jelean S. Montgomery to
establish three RS-10,000 zoned lots on the east side of West Street, north
Pioneer Drive, with the following Code waivers:
a. Minimum lot width.
b. Minimum side yard setback.
c. Minimum number of enclosed parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-171, granted
said variance, subject to conditions.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2726; Submitted by Robert P. Hall Co construct six free-
standing signs on CH zoned property, located on the southwest side of
Manchester Avenue, north of Orangewood Avenue, with Code waivers of:
a. Maximum number of free-standing signs.
b. Permitted sign location.
c. Minimum distance between free-standing signs.
d. Maximum sign height within 300 feet of a residential structure.
e. Minimum sign height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-172, granted
said variance in part, with deletion of waiver "e" subject to conditions
, ·
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1549: Granted by the City Planning Commission
to permit a drive-up restaurant at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Knott
Street.
The City Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC75-173, to amend
Resolution No. PC75-149, nunc pro Cunt, to complete Condition No. 1, a portion
of which was not shown due to clerical error.
8. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. $949: Developer, John Wertin Development Corporation.
Property located on the southwesterly side of Lakeview Avenue between Cerro
Vista Drive and Peralta Hills Drive and is proposed for subdivision into 21RS-
HS-43,000 lots.
Tentative Tract No. 8949 w~s continued to be considered in conjunction
w-ich Environmental Impact Report No. 151.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held August 4, or August 18, 1975, pertaining to
the following applications were removed from the above Consent Calendar for
discussion and separate action by the City Council.
1. CONDITION~.L USE PERMIT NO. 1143 (READVERTISED): Request of Fred Sotomayer
to expand an existing pre-school on RS-7200 zoned property with tile following
Code waiver was submitted together with application for exemption status from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. Property is located
on the east side of East Street, south of La Palma Avenue.
a. Minimum sideyard setback.
75-776
City Hall1 Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26; 1975; 1:30 P'M'
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-169, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. ll&3 (Readvertised), subject to conditions.
Councilwoman Kay-wood noted that there had been a written request for
public hearing on this item, and due to the fact that it was granted by a split
vote of the City Planning Commigsion, requested that this matter be set for
public hearing before the City Council.
2. TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. $992: (Variance No. 2682) Developer, The
Warmington Company; property located on the east side of Magnolia Avenue, south
of Lincoln Avenue; proposed for subdivision into one RM-1200 zoned lot.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 18, 1975,
approved said tentative map as being in substantial conformance with the City
Council's approval of plans submitted in connection with Variance No. 26J2,
includin$ sufficient amenities for the senior citizens who will occupy said
development, subject to the following conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision~ each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
2. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
3. 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.
4. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of
the final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. Said
covenants, conditions and restrictions shall include specific reference to the
permitted age of the potential property owners in order to restrict residents
to "senior citizens" only.
5. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit
to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed
functioning of the operating corporation, including but not limited to the
articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to
insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other information
as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens and the
purchasers of the project.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
Councilwoman Kaywood advised that she has observed a number of children
still living in this project which was approved under Variance No. 2682 for
conversion to condominium units on the basis that these would be sold to senior
citizens (50 years of age or older). The rationale behind granting the waiver
of minimum off-street parking at that time was that some senior citizens
neither drive nor own vehicles.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Tentative
Map, Tract No. 8992 was approved, subject to the conditions recommended by the
City Planning Commission. To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAPS~ TRACT NOS. 8513~ 8515~ 8516 (REVISIONS NO. 1) AND E.I.R. NO. 105:
Developer, S.I.R. Developers Inc.; property located southeast of Walnut Canyon
Reservoir and northwest of the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon
'Road. Tract No. 8513, Revision No. I contains 33 proposed RM-2400 lots; Tract
No. 8515, Revision No. 1 contains 42 proposed RM-2400 lots; Tract No. 8516,
Revision No. 1 contains 39 proposed RM-2400 lots.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 4, 1975, by
motion, reaffirmed its action in connection with Environmental Impact Report
No. 105, which applies to Tentative Tract Nos. 8513, 8515 and 8516 (Revisions
No. 1), indicating maid E.I.R. to be in full compliance with the City and State
Guidelines and State of California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 4, 1975,
approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8513, Revision No. ! subject to the following
conditions:
75-777
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California -.COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26t 1975, 1:30 P.M.
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 3513 (Revision No. 1)
is granted subject to the completion of~Reclassification No. 71-72-44.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as. more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That 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.
5. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of
the final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit
to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of tile proposed
functioning of the operatins 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.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
8. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer. If~ in the preparation of the site, sufficient
grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading shall
be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site
drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance
shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed
prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities
shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated
condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required
drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff
waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate
disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be
the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the
ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building
inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements
may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
9. That grading~ excavation and all other construction activities shall
be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
ori~inating from this project being carried into the Santa Aha River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
10. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the
City of Anaheim's standards for private streets.
11. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this
tentative tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be
subject to precise design considerations and approval of the City Engineer.
12. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary
street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
13. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
14. That vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings,
to Serrano Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
15. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
16. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific plans
shall be submi~ed and approved in accordance with provisions of the PCm
Planned Community, Zone.
17. That special brochures shall be prepared by the developer for the
purpose of instructing purchasers of these homes and any landscape maintenance
company working on subject property on the proper maintenance and watering of
landscaped slopes, and that these brochures shall be submitted to and approved
by the Engineering Division and Development Services Department prior to
recordation of the final tract map.
75-778
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~.ust 26~ 19~5, 1:30 P..M.
18. That all drainage from subject property shall be diverted in such a
manner as to no~ drain into the Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranch Lake) and
that all methods of drainage and grading shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Water Division prior to approval by the City Engineer.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 4, 1975,
approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8515, Revision No. 1, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative ~p of Tract No. 8515 (Revision No. 1)
is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That 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.
5. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of
the final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit
to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed
functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the
articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to
insure maintenance of common property and buildings and such other information
as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the
purchasers of the project.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
'8. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, sufficient
grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading shall
be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site
drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance
shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed
prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities
shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated
condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required
drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff
waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate
disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be
the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the
ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building
inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements
may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
9. That grading, excavation and all other construction activities shall
be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
10. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the
City of Anaheim's standards for private streets.
11. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this
tentative tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be
subject to precise design considerations and approval of the City Engineer.
12. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary
street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
13. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific plans
shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the PC,
Planned Community, Zone.
14. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
75-779
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 26; 1975~.~1:30 P'M'
15. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief'of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
16. That all drainage from subject property shall be diverted in such a
manner as to not drain into the Walnu~ Canyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranch Lake) and
that all methods of drainage and grading shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Water Division prior to approval by the City En&ineer.
17. That special brochures shall be prepared by the developer for the
purpose of instructing purchasers of these homes and any landscape maintenance
company working on subject property on the proper maintenance and watering of
landscaped slopes, and that these brochures shall be submitted to and approved
by the Engineering Division and Development Services Department prior to
recordation of the final tract map.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 4, 1975,
approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8516, Revision No. 1, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. ~516.(Revision No. 1)
is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That 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.
5. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of
the final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit
to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed
functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the
articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to
insure maintenance of common property and buildings and such other information
as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the
purchasers of the project.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
8. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, sufficient
grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading shall
be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site
drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance
shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed
prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities
shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated
condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the
developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required
drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff
waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate
disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be
the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the
ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building
inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements
may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
9. That grading, excavation and all other construction activities shall
be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
10. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific plans
shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the PC,
Planned Community, Zone.
11. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the
City of Anaheim's standards for private streets.
75-780
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26~ 1975, 1:30 P.M.
12. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this
tentative tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be
subject to precise design considerations and approval, of the City Engineer.
13. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary
street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
14. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
15. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
16. That all drainage from subject property shall be diverted in such a
manner as to not drain into the Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranch Lake) and
that all methods of drainage and grading shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Water Division prior to approval by the City Engineer.
17. That special brochures shall be prepared by the developer for the
purpose of instructing purchasers of these homes and any landscape maintenance
company workin8 on subject property on the proper maintenance and watering of
landscaped slopes, and that these brochures shall be submitted to and approved
by the Engineering Division and Development Services Department prior to
recordation of the final tract map.
The City Council, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Snee§as, sustained the reaffirmation of E.I.R. No. 105 by the City Planning
Commission and approved Tentative Tract Nos. 8513, 8515, 8516, Revisions No. 1,
subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. MOTION
CARRIED.
VARIANC~ Nq. 2724~ TENTATIVE MAP~. TRACT NOS.~ 8775~ 8793~. 8795 AND 8796~
REVISIONS NO. 1: (Supplement No. 3 to Environmental Impact Report No. 134
supplementary to Environmental Impact Report No. 113)
VARIANCE NO. 2724: Submitted by Brigham Young University to construct a four-
tract 224 lot multiple-family residential subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned
property located northwesterly of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and
Euclid Street with Code waivers of:
a. Requirement that all lots front on a public street.
b. Minimum sideyard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-167, recom-
mended that the City Council certify Supplement No. 3 to E.I.R. No. 134
(supplementary to E.I.R. No. 113) as being in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and granted Variance No. 2724, subject to conditions.
TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NOS. 8775~ S793~ 8795 AND 8796 (REVISIONS NO. 1): Owner,
Brigham Young University; property located north and west of the intersection
of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street; Tract No. ~775 containing 40 proposed RM-
2400 lots; Tract No. 8793 containing 66 proposed RM-2400 lots; Tract No. 8795
containing 75 proposed RM-2400 lots; Tract No. 8796 containing 43 proposed RM-
2400 lots.
Tract Nos. 8775, 8793, ~795 and .3796 (Revisions No. 1) were approved by
the City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 4, 1975, subject to
conditions.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that according to the Minutes of the City Plan-
ning Commission meeting held on August 18, 1975, the developer, Matreyek Homes,
proposes that out of a total of 788 parking spaces, 125 or 16% of these spaces
would not meet Code standards, these being tandem parking in driveways of less
than 25 feet in length. She advised that the entire proposal is now different
from that which was originally discussed and approved, and while she applauds
the decrease in density which will occur, she felt that these revised plans
have ~enerated a great many questions as indicated by the split vote of the
City Planning Commission on Variance No. 2724. For these reasons, Councilwoman
Kaywood indicated that she would prefer this variance be set for public hearing
and the tentative tracts and supplement to the E.IoR. continued to be
considered at that time as well.
75-781
~i.t.~ Nall, Anaheim, California -_COUNCIL .MINUTES.- August 26, 1975, 1.:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood further stated that it might be beneficial to set up
a task force to work out some of the problems before the matter is again dis-
cusseH by the City Council.
Councilman Seymour remarked that he thought the problem and concern with
this project was drainage. He noted that no other problems have been
identified to him. In reviewing the Planning Commission Minutes he felt their
main concern stemm_ed from the developer's lack of experience with the type of
development now proposed, which would be categorized somewhere between.single-
family detached housing and a condominium or townhouse project.
At the request of Councilman Seymour for input as to whether the citizens'
main concern regarding this project is drainage, Mr. Ben Bay, 2148 West Grayson
Avenue, Anaheim, addressed the Council. He indicated that the primary concern
was drainage, but after he had reviewed the detailed report submitted together
with this variance application, the complexity of the changes proposed became
more apparent. He stated that there are three reasons he would favor a public
hearing on this issue, these being: 1) The original E.I.R. called for a com-
plete approved drainage plan before any dirt was moved; 2) The commitment made
by the developer regarding the installation of a traffic light at Romneya and
La Palma is not a written condition of Variance No. 2724; and 3) The
commitment made by the developer for the continued closure of Falmouth and
Coronet Avenues at the west side of the development until all construction
phases are complete is not a written condition of Variance No. 2724.
Mr. Bay pointed out that in the past this project was promoted by the
developer as an adult condominium community which would lessen the impact on
schools and traffic; with the proposed change in the type of development, there
is a likely change in the projections for traffic and school age children.
Further he noted that subsequent to the last public hearing on the Anaheim
Shores project, Romneya Drive has been designated a secondary arterial, there-
fore he felt new traffic estimates for Coronet and Falmouth would be warranted.
Mr. Bay concluded there are sufficient areas of question involved to justify a
public hearing and also agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood~s suggestion that a
task force be formed to resolve the minor disagreements.
The Mayor asked if any representative of the developer was present to pro-
vide input, and there was no response.
Councilman Seymour voiced his agreement that if there is sufficient
concern as amplified by Mr. Bay regarding this project, that a task force
approach would be beneficial.
In response to concerns voiced by Councilman Seymour relative to the time
loss and expanses incurred by setting this matter for a public hearing,
Mr. Lowry indicated that since Variance No. 2724 was approved by the City
Planning Commission, unless the Council schedules same for public hearing this
date, it would automatically be approved, this being the 22nd day after the
Planning Commission action.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood requested that
Variance No. 2724 be set for public hearing in four weeks and that Tentative
Tract Nos. 8775, 8793, 8795 and 8796 (Revisions No. 1) and Supplement No. 3 to
E.I.R. No. 134 (supplementary to E.I.R. No. 113) be continued to be considered
in conjunction with said variance.
Later in the meeting, Mr. James Christiansen of Matreyek Homes requested
permission to address the City Council for clarification as to why Variance No.
2724 had been set for public hearing.
The reasons having been set forth, Mr. Christiansen urged Council to set
the date for public hearing as soon as possible so that no undue time delay
would be experienced by his firm.
The Council indicated they would be agreeable to an early date and
requested staff to make every effort to set Variance No. 2724 for public
hearing in two weeks (September 9, 1975).
75-782
City Hall~_ A.naheim~ California ..- COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
R~CLASSIFICATION NO. 7.3-7~-4, CONDITIONAL U~E PERMIT NO. 1410 - EXTENS~O..~ .OF
TIME: Request of Truman L. Gates, Administrator, Garden Park General Hospital,
for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 73-74-4 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 1410, proposed C-O zoning on property located at 950 South Gilbert
Street, was submitted together with reports from the Zoning Division of the
Planning Department and the City Engineer.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that five of the seven conditions
originally imposed on approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-4 have not yet
been satisfied.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City
Council granted a one-year extension of time retroactive to August 7, 1975,
expiring August 7, 1976, subject to the applicantts completion of the following
conditions within 180 days:
1. Payment of street tree planting fees.
2. Installation of street lighting facilities and a bond to guarantee
said installation.
3. Recordation of a tract map to record the reversion tO acreage.
4. Abandonment of that portion of Mystic Lane within the boundaries
of subject property.
5. Dedication of vehicular access rights to Mystic Lane and Harvest
Lane to the City of Anaheim.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-49 A~ VARIANCE NO. 2370 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request
of Richard D. Lutz, E. J. Campbell Company, 720 South Euclid Street, for an
extension of time to Reclassification No. 71-72-49 and Variance No. 2370 and
for review and approval of revised plans in connection with the proposed CL
zoning at 505 South Euclid Street, was submitted together with reports from the
Zoning Division of Planning Department and the City Engineer.
The report submitted by the Zoning Division recommended that should the
extension of time be granted to these zoning applications, it be for the period
retroactive to January 11, 1974 and expiring January 11, 1976. Further the
report recommended that the revised plans submitted in conjunction with this
request be denied since the use of same would require processing and approval
of a variance to waive the minimum building setback from the adjacent
agricultural zone and maximum building height.
Mr. Lutz addressed the Council and explained the background of his
proposal and his current situation.
Miss Santalahti advised that Variance No. 2370 was originally approved for
conversion of a residential structure for commercial use, whereas the revised
plans submitted with the request for extension of time indicate the applicant
intends to construct a new commercial building which satisfies all commercial
standards with the exception of setbacks from the north property line and
building height.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by COunCilman Snee§as, the City
Council granted a one-year extension of time to Reclassification No. 71-72-49
and Variance No. 2370, retroactive to January 11, 1974 and expiring January 11,
1976; and further indicated that said extension of time did not include
approval of the revised plans submitted on the basis that these would require
· processing and approval of a separate variance. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-5 AND VARIANCE NO. 2626 - EXTENSION OF TD{E: Request
of Dr. George O. Kirkelie, Jr., 520 North Dwyer Driver"Anaheim, for extension
of time to Reclassification No. 74-75-5 and Variance No. 2626, proposed C-O
zoning on property located at 1811 West Center Street, was submitted together
with reports from the Zoning Division of the Planning Department and the City
Engineer, recommending that if said extensions of time are granted, these be
for a period of one year expiring September 10, 1976.
Councilwoman Kaywood called attention to the fact that this petitioner has
completed nine of the conditions of approval imposed, and Councilman Seymour
75-783
Ci.t~ .H. all;. Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26, 1975, 1:.30 P_,M.
observed that these conditions are those which usually are completed at con-
struction once financing has been obtained.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Febley, the City
Council sranted a one-year extension of time to Reclassification No. 74-75-5
and Variance No. 2626, expiring September 10, 1976, as recommended by the
Zoning Division of the Plannin~ Department. MOTION CARRIED.
MODIFICATION OF TEAFFIC SIGNAL - EUCLID STREET AND ROMNEYA DRIVE: Request of Mr.
Leonard LaBella, Jr., Executive Director, Martin Luther Hospital, that the City
Council consider modification of the existing signal to provide for separate
left-turn indications at Euclid Street and Romneya Drive was submitted.
Petition was also submitted with a letter containing 163 signatures.
Report dated July 21, 1975 submitted by the City Engineer indicates a
recommendation that the subject signal be up-graded to provide for the separate
left-turn phase as requested, at an estimated cost of $20,000. Further, since
funds have not been budgeted and are not available for the project, the City
Engineer requests that Council consider providing the necessary monies from the
Council Contingency Fund.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded 'by Councilman Thom, the City
Council authorized the up-grading of the traffic signal at Euclid Street and
Romneya Drive, to provide for separate left-turn phase, at an estimated cost of
$20,000; said amount to be provided from the Council Contingency Fund. MOTION
CARRIED.
TRANSFER AND Pd~NOVATION OF WAGNER HOME PIPE ORGAN: Recommendation submitted by
the Cultural Arts Commission that the Wagner Home Pipe Organ be offered to the
Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts, for installation at the Anaheim
Cultural Arts Center with all costs of moving, renovation, installation and
perpetuation to be borne by the Foundation at no cost to the City of Anaheim or
the A~aheim City School District was presented for Council consideration.
Councilwoman Kaywood reported that Mrs. Leta Archer, Director of the
Anaheim Cultural Arts Center, had not indicated that the Amaheim Foundatiom for
Culture and the Arts would be willing to commit funds for restoration, etc., of
the organ. Since clarification of the situation would be warranted prior to
Council action, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the recommendation submitted by
the Cultural Arts Commission be continued to the meeting of September 9, 1975
pending comments from the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 74-21A: In accordance with application filed by
Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Premer, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment
of a portion of an existing public utility easement located at 955 Ambridge
Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 75R-422, 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
abandonment.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-462: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-462 for
, ,
adoption, approving Abandonment No. 74-21A, as recommended by the City
-Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING TIlE VACATION
AND ABANDONMENT OF THAT PORTION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (74-21A)
Roll Call Vote:
75-784
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26,. 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOGS; COUNCIL~BEK$: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-462 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1475: To consider revocation of a
per'it 'w~'~'Ch was' ~p~ved P'ursuant"to Resolution No. 74R-443 to permit a half-
way house for alcoholism and druB-related problems on CG zoned property~
located on the west side of Claudine Street, north of Broadway. This hearing
was scheduled following receipts of complaints and comments from area residents
at the Council meeting of July 29, 1975 and August 5, 1975.
One written communication was received from Mr. Frank A. Dusek, owner of
the Pickwick Hotel, 225 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, favoring revocation
of Conditional Use Permit No. 1475.
Report prepared by the Zoning Division of the Planning Department dated
August 5, 1975, was submitted and Miss Santalahti reported that she had spoken
with the Building Division this date to determine whether or not the half-way
house has taken steps towards satisfying the conditions of approval as
originally set forth, and learned that there has 'been no activity in this
direction through the Building Division.
The Mayor asked if a representative of the half-way house was present and
wished to address the Council.
Mr. David Alvarado, 205 South Claudina Street, submitted a report to
Council Members regarding the "get-going" program. In response to complaints
previously lodged against the half-way house operation by surrounding area
residents, Mr. Alvarado contended that there were none lodged in the building
to the rear or the property for nine days because of an over-all clean up and
fumigation of the rooms in the main house; that there is around the clock
supervision provided at the house; that there is an open-door policy, with
police and parole officers visiting at all hours and that to his knowledge no
liquor bottles have been observed by these people or by himself in the trash;
that the complaints regarding women on the premises and screaming would have
warranted police action, but they have had no problems with the Police
Department. Further he contended that they have a good relationship with the
neighbors even to the extent that they have been able to borrow a lawnmower and
have assisted Mrs. Copeland by mowing her lawn. He stated that of the 13
individuals living in the house, 12 are now working.
Also speaking in favor of the continued operation of the half-way house
was Mr. Brian Parry, a State Parole Agent, 964 Lamark Avenue, Anaheim, and Mr.
Glenn Khahn, 201 South Claudina, a neighbor of the half-way house.
Mr. Parry cited that he has been working with the "get-going" program for
three and one-half months and during this period has had an opportunity to
observe the staff and residents at all times of the day including weekends. He
reported that he has placed ex-addicts and alcoholics under parole supervision
at this home, which he would not have done unless he felt they were meeting the
requirements of their program description. He reported that he has been
working with drug addicts and alcoholics for four and one-half years and to his
knowledge "get-going" is one of the most reputable programs involved in this
type of work in Southern California.
Mr. Khahn related that the half-way house has been a good neighbor; that
their yard is clean; they are quiet and he has not had anything missing from
his garage.
Mr. Richard Edwards, 11892 First Street, Orange, California, related that
he is a recovered drug addict, alcoholic and ex-convict. He stated that he has
frequented the half-way house quite often since he now works with these people
on a voluntary basis and has always found it to be clean and in order.
The Mayor called for those who wished to address the Council in opposition
to the continuation of the operation of the half-way house.
75-785
City H~ll, Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26, 197.5,. 1:30 P..~..
Mr. Gerald Bushore, property owner at 205 and 209 Claudina Street,
Anaheim, indicated that he was representing many of the neighbors from the area
around the half-way house at their request. He stressed that the reason they
are protesting operation of the half-way house is not so much problems which
have arisen as a result of it, but the fact that they have made no efforts to
comply with Building regulations and apparently do not intend to do so. He
pointed out that they were in operation at this location from 1971 to 1974
without proper permit, and the reason Conditional Use Permit No. 1475 was
requested was because of the efforts of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. At the
time of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1475, Mr. Bushore noted that one
of the conditions was that Building violations be taken care of within 60 days,
and despite the fact that the half-way house representative at that Council
meeting indicated these repairs would cost a minimal sum of $1,000, they have
not yet been accomplished. He questioned why it was necessary to move so many
men out into the rear structures while the house was being cleaned and
fumigated when the conditional use permit was approved for a total of 13 men to
live at this location, including staff and supervisors. Further he noted that
the file will show a complaint was made on July 7, 1975, relative to the use of
the garage and rear structure for sleeping purposes and when representatives of
the Planning Department inspected the premises on July 30, 1975, they were
still using the garage for sleeping purposes. This would indicate a period
greater than nine days.
Mr. Bushore further reported that he had submitted to the Planning Depart-
ment a list of the dates on which calls were made to the Police Department for
various incidents. He advised they were unable to obtain documentation of this
from the Police Department because the record of Police responses and investi-
gations is kept in the daily log and would require researching of these.
Mr. Bushore concluded that the half-way house is not complying with the
conditions under which their permit was approved; that this location is
inappropriate for alcoholic rehabilitation, being located within such close
proximity to liquor stores and to establishments with on-sale alcoholic
beverages.
Mrs. One%da Copeland, 207 South Claudina Street, stated that she lives
next door to the half-way house. She related several incidents of the
residents from that house entering upon her's and other neighbors' property
during the day and nighttime hours and indicated that she has personally picked
up beer cans from the area between her property and the half-way house. Mrs.
Copeland contended that there is no supervision of the movements of the
residents of the half-way house outside of that building.
Mrs. Copeland explained that the only reason the neighbors did not pursue
their objections to the half-way house at the public hearing before the City
Council was that at that time the area residents were aware of plans being
formulated by the City of Anaheim to construct a city hall complex and this
particular property would most likely have been included within that to be
purchased by the City. However, since the City's plans have changed, the
neighbors now feel they are stuck with this problem in their midst and wish it
r~noved. She related that the neighbors are generally unsympathetic towards
these men who are alcoholics and drug users and do not feel safe in their
homes. She indicated they feel this type of business operation should be con-
ducted in a location away from residential property and away from the
temptations which are present in this immediate vicinity.
There being no further persons wishing to speak in favor or in opposition,
Mayor Thom closed the public hearing.
The Deputy City Attorney noted that there are two courses of action avail-
able to the Council at this point, to either take no action on Conditional Use
Permit No. 1475 or to set it for a public hearing under an Order to Show Cause
as to why the permit should not be revoked.
During Council discussion, Council Members Seymour and Sneegas voiced the
opinion that while this program is worthwhile and does perform a beneficial
social purpose, the Council cannot permit the sponsoring agents to violate
Building codes and standards. Councilman Sneegas additionally pointed out that
being the type of operation it is, the sponsoring agency does have a responsi-
bility to the neighbors to ensure that they are not being disturbed by the
75-786
CSty .Hall~. Anaheim, Cali~0.rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26~ 197.5a 1:30 P.M.
operation of the half-way house, and it appears from what has been presented
that no such responsibility has been accepted in this case. Councilman Sneegas
further recommended that in the future, if this conditional use permit is
revoked, such an operation not be located in such close proximity to residences
and that documentation of any incidents, particularly involving the Police, be
kept by the supervisor.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved that Conditional
Use Permit No. 1475 be scheduled for public hearing under Order to Show Cause
as to why the permit should not be revoked on September 16, 1975. Councilman
Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC fLEARING - PROPOSED ADMISSION-AMUSEMENT TAX: To consider establishing a 5%
Admission-Amusement Tax for the purpose of financing a new Civic Center and/or
other long-term capital improvements.
Submitted were the following communications received prior to public
hearing in the Office o£ the City Clerk:
1. Letter dated August 25, 1975, from Ralph L. Burch, 1711 East
Charlestown Drive, Anaheim.
2. 33 form-type letters in support of the 5% Entertainment Tax proposal
from property owners and tenants in the downtown area (said letters on file in
the Office of the City Clerk).
3. Petition received August 25, 1975 in opposition to the proposed 5%
Admission-Amusement Tax containing 47 signatures (on file in the Office of the
City Clerk).
Mayor Thom opened the public hearing and indicated he would conduct said
hearing by calling upon one speaker in favor and one in opposition
consecutively.
The following is a list of the individuals who addressed the Council and a
brief summary of their remarks:
1. Joe White, 809 West Broadway, Anaheim. Mr. White, a Member of the
Civic Center Task Force which unanimously proposed the Admission/Amusement Tax~
stated that the Task Force considered this proposed tax to be a solution .for
the City's stagnant capital improvement program. He contended that the City
has for years placed too much monetary emphasis on tourist-related areas of the
City while neglecting such needed capital improvements as railroad underpasses;
undergrounding of electrical lines; median planted strips; and a Civic Center
Complex which would be the last capital improvement on his list of priorities.
He contended that the annual City expenses related to the tourism and enter-
tainment industry would be better spent to encourage industrial development
which would provide a more stable economy.
2. Helen Budinger, 226 East Lincoln Avenue, Vice President of the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce reported on the position adopted by the Board of
Directors, of the Chamber on August 21, 1975.
Ms. Budinger conveyed that the Board passed a motion endorsing the Civic
Center as both desirable and feasible and in this .respect enthusiastically
support the Civic Center Task Force report dated July 22, 1975. They also, by
motion, adopted a position of opposition to the financing of a Civic Center by
means of an Admission Tax. The Directors voted to ask the City Council to
delay action on the Admission-Amusement Tax proposal for 90 days in order to
~allow a special Chamber Committee time to produce alternative methods of
financing. The Directors dedicated their resources in this search for a viable
means of funding by appointing Jim Webb as Chairman of the Task Force charged
with this responsibility. She asked that Mr. Webb be permitted to address the
Council as part of her presentation.
Mr. Webb, representing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, 130 South Lemon,
Anaheim, indicated they recommend against the proposed 5% Admission-Amusement
Tax on the basis that a handful of businesses would be singled out to pay for
improvements which should be spread over thousands of businesses and residents
which use City services. He estimated that this proposed additional 5% tax,
which would yield an estimated $4,000,000 per year, when added to the other
taxes on the tourist and entertainment industries would total $6,000,000 per
7~787
City Hall! Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 261 197..51 1:30 p.M.
year from the industry. This is roughly equal to the property taxes received
by the City from all residents and busiflesses. The Chamber feels this
additional tax would endanger the economic growth of the tourism industry,
Mr. Webb concluded that the Chamber is in favor of improving outdated City
facilities but feels there are other reasonable alterpmtives to accomplish
this, and has therefore appointed the Task Force to search for a solution.
3. Mr. Bill Ehrle, Executive Director, I.C.E.B.E.R.G., spoke in favor of
the proposed tax stating that the Anaheim taxpayers have subsidized and
accommodated close to 13,000,000 tourists, conventioneers, and sports fans
annually in a City which has tourist and sports facilities unmatched, but that
the center city is decaying and in need of restoration. I.C.E.B.E.R.G. feels
it is time to reverse this trend and to enrich the lives of Anaheim citizens.
They therefore endorse the intent of the Admissions Tax because it is a
voluntary tax which would be acknowledged by the payee when purchasing the
price of admission and further endorse the intent that the revenues derived
therefrom be used solely for people-oriented capital improvements.
I.C.E.B.E.R.G. further restricts their endorsement of the tax to enactment
only as long as another vehicle cannot be found and pledges to do everything it
can towards this end. They therefore further recommend that the passage of the
ordinance implementing the Admission-Amusement Tax be enacted but not be made
effective for a period of 120 days to enable I.C.E.B.E.R.G. representatives to
seek an alterative financing vehicle. Mr. Ehrle volunteered to coordinate such
a committee or assist in whatever way possible. If a solution cannot be found
via this cooperative effort, then I.C.E.B.E.R.G. feels the Council should
proceed with the tax and request that a special depository be created for
Admission-Amusement Tax revenues so that these cannot be co-mingled with the
General Fund. Further that if this legislation is enacted, a maximum of 5% be
levied and this percentage be reevaluated annually.
4. Herbert Leo, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Anaheim Area Visitors
and Convention Bureau, read the following motion adopted by the Board at their
meeting of August 25, 1975: "The Anaheim Area Visitors and Convention Bureau
Board of Directors opposes the Admission-Amusement Tax as a method of financing
and that the position of the Bureau be made known to the Anaheim City Council
by the Chairman of the Board at the City Council meeting of August 26, 1975."
Some of the points made during discussion of the motion were: an Amusement-
Admission Tax is discriminatory against one segment of the business community;
this Amusement Tax could have a serious effect on tourist attendance in Anaheim
and the City Council should not consider any action which would Jeopardize this
$6,000,000 industry; and that there could be a greater loss in sales~
inventory, property tax and room tax than the Admission-Amusement Tax could
generate.
5. Dr. Sol Teitelbaum, First Vice President of Coalition of Anaheim
Leaders (COAL) read the following statement: "The Coalition of Anaheim
Leaders, otherwise known as COAL, has passed, unanimously, a resolution to
support, in principle, the Amusement and Entertainment Tax for capital improve-
ments which are people-oriented."
6. Mr. Jack Lindquist, 10092 Knuth Circle, Villa'Park, representing
Disneyland, 1313 Harbor Boulevard, commented on the probable ramifications of
this tax on the Disneyland employees, 5,000 of whom reside in the City of
Anaheim and who are dependent upon Disneyland for their security. These people
are vitally interested in the growth and prosperity of this industry as are the
employees of the hotels, motels and restaurants. These employees comprise a
strong economic and political force, Disneyland employees alone owning more
than $25,000,000 worth of residential property in Anaheim. Mr. Lindquist
stressed that these people are not concerned about having to pay the 5%
Admission-Amusement Tax but that this tax may cost them their Jobs.
Mr. Lindquist cited statistics indicating the world-wide renown of Disneyland.
and its ability to attract visitors and urged that the Council not take any
action which might at best stabilize and minimize its future growth, and at
worst, cripple and destroy a primary industry.
Mr. Lindquist stated that he did not really think either proponents or
opponents of the tax can foresee its consequences, and therefore urged that the
City Council not act precipitously, but that they recognize the recommendation
75-788
City HallI Anahei.mt..California- COUNCIL,..MINUTES- Au~us.t. 26, 19.75~ .1,'30 p...M..
of the united business community as expressed by the Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce and the Anaheim Area Visitors and Convention Bureau. He also urged
that the City Council look to the tourism industry for assistance in solving
their real problem in civic center development, as this industry may be able to
come up with some concepts which are unique, farsighted and innovative.
7. Jean Fogarty, Vice President of the Anaheim Board of Realtors, read a
resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Realtors which endorses and
supports the 5% Admission-Amusement Tax for a limited time for the purpose of
constructing certain long-term capital improvements such as parks, libraries,
community centers, tennis courts, public auditoriums, a Cultural Arts Center
and a City Hall Complex. The Anaheim Board of Realtors further endorses and
supports a ballot measure to change the City Charter to require that all
Admission Tax revenues be accounted for separately and their use restricted to
those types of improvements above described.
8. Don Anderson, Vice President, Marketing and Public Relations,
California Sun, advised that his organization wishes to go on record as
strongly opposed to the proposed Admission-Amusement Tax since they feel it
would be most damaging to their growth. He cited that their ticket sales have
dropped by more than 70% from last year and should this proposed tax be levied
they would be required to change their ticket price structure to a $9.00 top
ticket and a season ticket which would amount to nearly $100. They feel that
these prices would seriously deter sales at a time when they need to increase
them most severely.
Mr. Anderson further remarked that a drop in revenues for the Sun would
also result in lost revenues to the City by way of lower receipts from parking
and concessions at the Stadium. He concluded that the tax would be inequitable
in that it taxes a few for the responsibilities of many.
9. W. Herbert Eggett, Chairman of the Anaheim Democratic Club, reported
on the resolution adopted by that Club which recognizes the concern of the
Officers and members about the lack of funds in the City for needed capital
improvements and the constantly rising costs of same, and urges the Anaheim
City Council to approve the proposed 5% Admission-Amusement Tax.
10. Mr. Robert W. Selig, President of the National Association of Theatre
Owners in the State of California and an employee of Pacific Theatres reported
that his organization feels this tax is highly discriminatory because it is
directed against only a few businesses. They oppose the tax because they feel
it will deliberately drive their patrons out of the City of Anaheim into
neighboring cities to view motion pictures for a lower price because of the
absence in those cities of an Admission-Amusement Tax. They suggest to the
Council that the recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce and other civic
groups be considered to find some other alternative way to raise the necessary
funds, and pledge 100% of their best efforts towards this end.
11. Mr. Robert Llnn, 507 Meadowbrook Place, Anaheim, advised that he is
speaking as a citizen of the community only and not representing any organiza-
tion or business. He noted that the City of Anaheim is unique in that it has
many areas of which it can be p,oud but not its downtown area. He advised that
since attempts to pass bonds have been unsuccessful and an increase in property
taxes would be intolerable because of the many senior citizens in the community
whom it would affect, and because an additional sales tax would also be
intolerable as it would drive all businesses to neighboring communities-, he
favors the proposed Admission-Amusement Tax. Mr. Linn contended that although
the Angels may have an attendance problem they do have a number of steady fans
who the 5% increase would not drive away. He cited the high cost of attending
athletic performances at the Forum in Inglewood as evidence that if the per-
formance is high quality, the fans will attend despite a higher cost. Further,
Mr. Linn reported that from the date of opening, Disney World in Florida has
been taxed 4% on admissions, rides, and food, but the Disney Corporation still
opened that park and people are still attending in substantial numbers.
12. Mr. Red Patterson, 213 Cabrillo Circle, Fullerton, representing the
California Angels, stated that he was present when the majority and minority
reports were submitted by the Civic Center Task Force Committee and in his
opinion the most repulsive comment included therein was that the Angels were
being subsidized by the City of Anaheim. He cited that the Angels are in the
75-78~
tenth year of a 3S-year contract pursuant to which they pay a minimum of
$160,000 rental per year or 7~% of the ~ross gate, whichever is higher, plus
the City receives revenue from parking and concessions. Mr. Patterson noted
that the Angels' gate receipts are up this year and that this additional tax
would put them off the track since it ia impossible to draw more people if you
are charging more money.
Mr. Patterson also cited that the Angels have paid $482,215.63 for
maintenance and improvements at the Anaheim Stadium over the past seven years,
which costs were over and above their game day expenses. He explained that
when the Angels stage promotional events, issue complimentary or reduced price
tickets, the City is paid at full gross price. In ten years of operation the
Angels have adjusted the capacity house figures from 132,000 to 138,000. The
5% tax now proposed would require that the Angels increase the ticket cost to
their fans overnight by $6,900 for a capacity house, which is more than the
Angels have increased tickets over a ten-year period.
Mr. Patterson concluded that he has reported this situation to Mr. Gene
Autry, Chairman of the Board of the California Angels, who requested that the
following statement be issued: "The Angels have worked on a 35-year contract
which includes $160,000 per year minimum or ?%% of the gross of our gate,
whichever is §rearer; this tax in effect changes the terms of the lease. We
are making a Study as to whether such a tax would in fact be a breach of that
contract. If our fans are asked to pay it, we must give serious consideration
to taking the Angels out of Anaheim."
13. }/rs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Aha Canyon Improvement
Association, Inc., 131 La Paz Street, Anaheim, reported that her organization
favors the Admission-Amusement Tax proposal because property owners in Anaheim
have had their property tax raised due to increase in assessed valuation.
Further, because of this increase in assessed valuation, she estimated that the
chances for passage of a bond issue would be very slim. She voiced the opinion
that ~rith the growth projections for this City, more City services and
increased staff will be necessary. A central facility to economically and
efficiently administer these services is essential. She related that the
present situation of City Departments being scattered throughout with make-
shift offices would prove to be more costly if a study were undertaken. There
is no impetus for outside developers to participate in Project. Alpha unless the
City itself shows a sign of good faith by its willingness to build a major
project such as the Civic Center. Additionally, the Santa Arm Canyon Improve-
ment Association, Inc., recommendation would be that any monies collected from
the Admission-Amusement Tax be maintained in a separate fund with the
stipulation that these be spent only for people-oriented capital improvements.
14. Mr. Robert Hansen, 3253 Washington, Costa Mesa, representing the
National Association of Stage Crafts and Motion Picture Machine Operators,
remarked that one factor which has not been brought up is the possibility of a
large unemployment problem resulting from this tax since the Entertainment
Industry, and in particular motion pictures, is a marginal operation. It would
not take much to cause these to shut down in which event a substantial
percentage of his organization would be unemployed, lie stated that the tax was
discriminatory against the Entertainment Industry and employees of that
industry. '
15. Mr. Ray Campbell, 620 Gilbuck Street, Anaheim, identified himself as a
small businessman who is a member of the Chamber of Commerce. He questioned
how many of the Task Force participants were members of the Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce to which Councilman Seymour responded that out of the Committee of 12,
5 were members of the Chamber, 2 were past Presidents~of the Chamber, and 1 was
the current Vice President.
Mr. Campbell stated that he would personally like to hear more input from
the citizens of Anaheim rather than the large corporate interests and suggested
that the matter of the Admission-Amusement Tax be placed on a ballot so that
the comunity could vote on it.
75-790
City Hall, A..na_he{m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26, 1975~ 1;30 P,M.
16. Mr. Frank Cozza, 158A West Audre, Anaheim, identified ilimself as a
small businessman and opposed to the Admission-Amusement Tax. tle voiced the
opinion that the citizens of Anaheim should take care.of their owl1 problems and
not tax the tourists. He contended that tourists contribute a seasonal 20,%
increase in his business and that the proposed tax will hurt a lot of small
businesses.
17. Neva Parsons, 2105 Wegt Ball Road, Anaheim, representing the Senior
Citizens of Southwest Anaheim and speaking as the Senior Citizen Chairman of
the Social Action Committee, St. Justin Martyr Church, stated that they favor
the 5% Admission-Amusement Tax because the senior citizens and lower and middle
income families are already taxed to the limits of their ability to pay, and
utility costs are far above the budget allowed by most of these people.
Mrs. Parsons stated that these people realize that the City is in need of
certain capital improvement projects such as a City Hall, additional traffic
lights at dangerous intersections and a community building inModjeska Park.
She related that she has spoken to young families with children who do attend
movies and go to Disneyland, and they indicated they would be in favor of an
Admission-Amusement Tax over an increase in property tax or a.utility tax. She
voiced the opinion that the additional 5% tax would not keep tourists from
coming and since these people stay in Anaheim and enjoy the facilities, they
should contribute toward the City's needs.
18. Mr. Cecil Bennikoff, 1255 North Waverly Drive, Los Angeles, owner of
the Brookhurst and Loge Theatres in Anaheim reported on the specific manner in
which his business would be affected by the proposed tax. He explained that
there are 92 hard-top theatres in Orange County, 9 of which are located in
Anaheim. When a new film is announced, the theatre owners receive an
invitation to bid on that film, sometimes unseen. These bids are then
evaluated and the theatre which the distributors believe will give them the
greatest amount of revenue and ~lich has the lowest overhead will be awarded
the bid. He stated that if the Anaheim theatres have to charge an additional
5% for the Admission-Amusement Tax, this would effectively eliminate them from
the possibility of succeeding in the bid for a new film. Mr. Bennikoff stated
that of the ten cities he has read about which have adopted such a tax, four
have exempted motion picture theatres. He requested, should the Council
approve such a tax, that they exempt the motion picture theatres from its
application.
19. Mr. Donald Ray Bretz, 2546 Puritan Circle, Anaheim, identified himself
as a realtor, speaking as a private citizen, and indicated that he favOred the
proposed tax because it is voluntary and because he feels it is not unreaSon-
able to levy such a tax on the thousands of people coming through the CitY to
utilize its benefits.
20. Mr. Martin Sklar, 1664 Carnelian Street, Anaheim, advised that he is
an employee of Walt Disney Productions and is also an active resident of the
City of Anaheim, being a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission,
Cultural Arts Commission, and for the past seven years on the Anaheim'
Elementary School District Board of Trustees. He advised that he has always
remained silent when City affairs involved his employer but on this issue,
feels so strongly about the principle involved that he has to speak up. He
voiced the opinion that with this tax the Council is singling out one industry
because it has been successful and attempting to take a share, thereby imposing
a penalty on the industry for its success. He stated that he did not think
this form of taxation to be in the best interests of the City of Anaheim
because of the attitude it would foster in the minds of business and industry
which could ultimately lead to Anaheim having the same type of business climate
as New York City. At this same time, Mr. Sklar recognized the various people-
oriented needs within the City and advised that the Parks and Recreation
Commission will be grappling with this very problem at a special meeting of the
evening of September 8, 1975. In connection with the comments made regarding a
Cultural Arts Center as being a consideration for construction from these
potential tax revenues, he stressed that first there must be a much clearer
definition of the community need and public support for such a facility. He
strongly supported the proposals made by the Chamber of Commerce and
I.C.E.B.E.R.G. that a 90- to 120-day period be utilized to study these needs
and the alternative methods for financing them.
75-791
City Hall. t Anaheim! .Californi..a .-.CO. UN..CIL .MINUTES - August 26, 1975, 1:30 P.M.....
21. Mrs. Marian Koe, ~49 South Canoga, Anaheim, stated that she believes
the tourists coming into the City actually generate far more use of City
services than the amount of the tax proposed. She stated that she could not
afford additional property taxes or higher utility bills, but that if the
entertainment were worthwhile, she would not oppose paying 5% or even 10% addi-
tional cost to see it.
22. Mr. Jack C. Dutton, 921 West Pioneer Drive, Anaheim, speaking as a
resident and businessman, stated that the Councilts Judgment is no better than
the information it has, and in this connection suggested that they contract a
firm to perform a costs-benefit study to determine what the tourist actually
costs the Anaheim citizen. He voiced the opinion that the results would
indicate that the tourist is a tremendous asset. Mr. Dutton further expressed
the opinion that this proposed tax is immoral in that it imposes a taxation
upon people without any representation and further because it, in effect, would
increase the percentages' in the 35-year contract with the Angels from 7½ to
12½%. He noted that there are other methods of funding a city hall including
use of revenue sharing funds for the first phase and the lease-purchase plan
proposed by Dr. Brashears.
23. ~1rs. Oneida Copeland, 207 South Claudine Street, Anaheim, indicated
that the local downtown property owners support the 5% Amusement-Admission Tax
and that they do not feel it will hurt Dlsneyland. She made statements about
Disneyland raising their prices which were subsequently corrected by
Mr. Lindquist.
24. Mr. Albert J. Sacks, representative of the International Association
of Machinists, remarked that Disneyland, the Anaheim Stadium and Convention
Center hawe created a lot of jobs for this particular area and that each of
these employees is also a spender, so that all businessmen in Anaheim have
benefited from these industries. If Council determines that the proposed 5%
tax will be levied, then all of those people will suffer.
Mayor Thom closed the public hearing.
RECESS; Councilwoman Kaywood moved for a five-minute recess. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:00 P.M.)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION - PUBLIC HEARING~ PROPOSED ADMISSION-AM~jSEMENT TAX:
Councilman Sneegas initiated discussion of the proposal indicating that his
main objection to the tax is based on the moral issue of changing the terms on
contracts which are already in effect. He remarked that he could not agree to
change the revenue percentage to 12½% when the original agreement provided for
7~%. Secondly, he remarked that he felt the people who will be hurt by this
proposed tax are the smaller businesses in the community who rely on repeat
trade. He related an incident in which he discussed the justification of the
tax, being that the visitor comes into the City and utilizes facilities but has
not contributed towards them, and it was pointed out to him that a tourist
visiting most other cities does not spend the sum which he spends in Anaheim.
Councilman Pebley concurred with Councilman Sneegas' remarks.
Councilman Seymour stated that his position in this matter has been
obvious from its inception when the Civic Center Task Force made the
recommendation. He reported that there has been a problem in this City for
many yearm of not being able to find the money to meet the necessary capital
improvement projects and yearly these have been deleted from the budget. He
remarked that his position in relation to the Admission-Amusement Tax has been
described as contradictory to the leadership role he has assumed in vigorously
trimming the budget and the costs of government operations. He pointed out
that these are two separate issues, that this proposed Admission-Amusement Tax
would provide revenues for building materials which would eventually result in
developed parks and libraries for which the sites were acquired many years ago
but have not been improved.
Councilman Seymour referred to the attempts to pass bonds to provide these
facilities and their failures, which were heretofore interpreted as a rejection
75-792
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26~ 1975~ 1;30 P.M.
by the citizens of the capital improvements. He contended that this is a poor
application of logic; that the citizens do need and desire the capital i~aprove-
ments, but also feel that they already have all the taxes they can tolerate;
therefore they vote against any bond issue. Councilman Seymour inquired though
whether, because the Angels, California Sun and Disneyland raise such angered
voices at the mention of an Admission-Amusement Tax; because the citizens vote
against bonds; because the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, who originally
requested that the Civic Center Task Force be reactivated, suggests that the
Council study further alternatives to the tax, - because of any of these
reasons, does the problem go away?
Councilman Seymour cited that the Anaheim Stadium has cost the Anaheim
citizen and taxpayer $8,484,940 directly from the General Fund since 1967,
which could have gone toward answering some of the people-oriented capital
improvement needs. He cited that even though a room occupancy tax was estab-
lished to pay for the Convention Center, this facility has still cost the
citizens of Anaheim $838,286 since 1968, which also could have gone toward
meeting their capital improvement needs. He pointed out that there was a price
exacted for these decisions which aided and abetted the cause, of tourism over
the years and that price was that these long-term capital improvements were
denied. He stated that he views his responsibility, being the elected
representative of the citizens, to attempt to provide these people-oriented
improvements, lie feels it is time that thc City of Anaheim approach this
problem with the same vigor, tenacity and courage with which they approached
the building of the Stadium and Convention Center.
Councilman Seymour indicated that he is tired of hearing the "no, not me"
attitude expressed in the community, especially when no efforts have been given
toward resolving the problem of funds for capital needs by seeking an alter-
native. He stressed that what the City needs is an intelligent on-going long-
term program for financing its capital improvements.
Councilman Seymour stated that he has lost patience with comments such as
those attributed to Mr. Lindquist from Disneyland that the Park will have to
shut down during certain winter months thereby driving people out of business
and putting people out of work, and that the Angels' 35-year lease contract can
be broken because of this tax, and he feels these remarks below the dignity of
these industries.
Councilman Seymour summarized the following information which he has
extracted in reviewing the subject of admission-type taxes as levied in cities
throughout the United States:
1. That Disney World in Florida has a 4,% tax on admission, as well as all
rides, and still had 11,000,000 visitors last year; considering that each
visitor spent $6.50 at that park, which is conservative, they have paid at
least $3,860,000 to the State of Florida.
2. That out of 24 cities with major league baseball teams, 11 charge an
admissions tax; 11 do not have such a tax and 2 cities did not respond. Some
of these cities had the tax in existence for considerable lengths of time
ranging from 10 to 38 years, and a number of these cities have a parking lot
tax besides an admissions tax. The tax itself in many cases is considerably.
more than the 5% proposed by the City of Anaheim.
Councilman Seymour further stated that in completing some research on
cities charging a room occupancy tax, it is interesting to note that 9 of 14
cities surveyed appropriate all or a portion of revenues derived therefrom to
their general fund account.
Councilman Seymour concluded that this tax is not a new idea, that past
City Councils have wrestled with it. If there is a better way to provide for
these capital improvements, he urged that the City find it and move toward
getting something done for the people of the City, who in his opinion, have
been carrying the burden and not receiving the benefits. Councilman Seymour
pointed out that he too is a small businessman and does have empathy with
private enterprise. Although there is not much doubt in his mind regarding
this tax proposal and he believes strongly enough in it to support it, if it
did prove so onerous as to create terrible problems in the community, he would
certainly not sit and watch this happen.
75-793
City Hall; Anaheim; Cal~.fo~.nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26, 1975t 1:30 p.M~
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the City Attorney be
instructed to prepare an ordinance which would effect a 5% Admission-Amusement
Tax for consideration and adoption by the City Council; and secondly that he be
instructed to provide to the Council input as to the alternatives, either
special doctrine fund or Charter Amendment, which would insure that these
revenues could only be used for the types of capital improvements which the
Council would specifically designate at the time they finalize the ordinance.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
Prior to voting on the motion, Councilwoman Kaywood advised that this has
been an agonizing decision for her since she firmly believes that general
obligation bonds are the method of choice for financing capital improvement
because this is the fairest way to pay for the improvements and because it
usually is the least expensive financing method. However, since it has been
impossible to get general obligation bonds approved in the City o~ Anaheim,
partially because there has been no support from the local newspapers, and
further because she has come ~o the realization that there is just about no way
that this will happen in the future, she therefore reported that it is with
very mixed emotions tha~ she has come to the conclusion that the Admission-
Amusement Tax is the way to accomplish many of the things which have not been
done.
Mayor Thom observed that there is no way the City Council, being an
elected political body, can vote to raise property taxes or to levy a tax on
utilities and hope to remain in office. The Admission-Amusement Tax in his
opinion is the only politically acceptable form of taxation which the Council
can enact in order to finance these capital improvements which have for so long
gone by the wayside because of other financial commitments which the City has
had in the tourist-entertainment area. He further noted that this would be a
voluntary tax and not a tax on any industry, but collected by that industry in
the same manner as sales taxes, and he does not, therefore, consider it
discriminatory.
~yor Thom pointed out that at this public hearing Council has heard from
many stalwart leaders of business and industry who work in this City but who by
choice do not live in this City, and therefore do not vote here. He pointed
out that he feels his allegiance and his obligation is to the resident,
citizen, taxpayer and small businessman of the City of Anaheim and it is for
that reason that he will support the Admission-Amusement Tax.
Councilman Seymour requested a roll call vote on the foregoing motion:
AYES: COUNCIL M~IBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBEP~: Pebley and Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-9; CO~ITIONAL USE PERM~.T
NO. 1042): Request of Betty Pagel, Realtor, for a public hearing to resolve a
question of a one-foot holding strip with regard to an Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication of an alley was submitted for Council consideration.
Ms. Pagel, 2185 West Hiawatha, Anaheim, 92804, advised that she represents
Mr. Giuseppe Notaro, resident of Anaheim and owner of property located at 2622
West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. She related that her problem is as stated in her
letter dated July 17, 1975, and she understands it would require public hearing
before the City Council to clarify the situation. Briefly, this situation is
that she represented Mr. Notaro in 1965 at the time rezoning was approved for
the property adjacent and to the west of his parcel on Lincoln Avenue. She
contends that at the time of public hearing on Reclassification No. 68-69-9,
she, on behalf of Mr. Notaro, withdrew objections to the plan for a three-story
motel because it was agreed that Mr. Notaro could eventually take access to the
alley which would be constructed in conjunction with that project without
reimbursement. However, now that Mr. Notaro intends to develop his property,
she has ascertained that in order to take access to the alley he would be
required to purchase a one-foot holding strip, which condition was added when
Hr. Mayer requested a clarification of conditions in October of 196~, which
action was not taken at a duly noticed public hearing of the City Council.
Hr. Thompson explained that it would be most appropriate to consider this
request at the public hearing which will be held at such time as Mr. Notaro
75-79A
City Hall, Anaheim~ Cali.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au.~ust 26~ 1975~ 1:.30 P.M.
intends to develop his property, since this would most likely require some
monin$ action in that his property is presently zoned agricultural.
Ms. Pagel advised that because of the size of Mr. Notaro's property, in
order to make it economically feasible, it will be necessary to develop that
property to its fullest potential, and it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to prepare a plan for development without knowing whether or not
access will be available to the alley. Ms. Pagel further indicated that Mr.
Notarots problem involves not only access rights to the alley, but the wording
of the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication does not clearly indicate whether Mr.
Notaro could purchase 12 feet of the holding strip for trash pickup, 20 feet
for a driveway, or whether he must purchase the entire 1~4 feet abutting his
property. She reiterated that these matters must be resolved before any plans
can be made to develop Mr. Notaro's property.
Brief discussion ensued during which Mr. Thompson explained the City
Engineer's policy in connection with holding strips, and Miss Santalahti
summarized the access situation as it relates to other properties in the
immediate area which abut the alley in question. At the conclusion of
discussion, it was generally agreed that the only way to clarify the situation
would be to schedule a duly noticed public hearing so that announcement of same
would be sent to all property owners within 300 feet.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council requested public hearing, at no expense to the petitioner, be scheduled
on Reclassification No. 6fS-69-9 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1042 to resolve
the question of a one-foot holding strip with regard to an Irrevocable Offer of
Dedication of alley. MOTION CARRIED.
EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE MAPS1 TRACT NOS. 84631 8464 AND 8465: Request of
Mr. James L. Barisic, Anaheim Hills Inc., dated August ~, 1975 for extension of
time to Tentative Maps, Tract Nos. 8463, 8464 and 8465 (Revisions No. 1) and
8466 was submitted together with reports from the Planning Department and the
City Engineer.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, a one-
year extension of time was granted to Tentative Maps, Tract Nos. 8463, ~464 and
8465 (Revisions No. 1) to expire August 27, 1976 and the requested extension of
time to Tentative ~.~p, Tract No. 8466 was denied on the basis that this tract
has already expired, as recommended by the Planning Department and City
Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-463 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 740-B: In accordance with
recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No.
75R-463 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A S,EALED PRO-
POSAL AND AWAP~ING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISH-
lNG OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES
AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL A~ WATER, A~ PERFORMING ALL WOPdZ~
NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND CO>~LETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: MIP~L0~iA
AVE~dE STREET I~ROV~ENT, E/O MILLER STREET TO YdlAEMER BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 740-B. (R. J. Noble Company - $47,096.~4)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~.~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None
ABSEI~: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None
The ~yor declared Resolution No. 75R-463 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3458: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3456 for
adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
75-795
Qit~ Hall~ Anaheim~..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26~ 1975~ 1;30 P.M.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (11) - ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~{BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL M~ERS: None
ABSEnt: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None
The .Mayor declared Ordinance No. 345~ duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3459: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3459 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9 (3) - CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~MBERS; Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3459 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3460: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3460 for
adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON ALL
PROPF. RTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF TIlE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR TltE FISCAL YEAR
1975-76. ($1.05 per $100 assessed valuation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL ME~ERS: None
ABSENT; COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3460 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3461; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3461 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIm! REPEALING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5.04 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5.04 RELATING TO
BICYCLE LICENSING.
ORDINANCE NO. 3462: In accordance with amendments to the Health and Safety Code
pertaining to the wiping rag business, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
No. 3462 for first readins.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 6.6~ TO THE ANAMEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIPING RAG BUSINESS.
OPPOSITION TO AB 1352: (Increase in permitted truck weights) Councilwoman
Kayw~od reported from the Legislative Bulletin of the League of California
Cities that AB 1352, increasing single-axle load maximums from 18,000 to 20,000
pounds has passed the S~ate Senate by a bare majority. Since this bill would
dramatically increase the costs of road maintenance and reconstruction (an
additional $7,000,000 to $11,000,000 in S~ate costs annually is estimated) and
the larger percentage of these roadways fall under the Jurisdiction of cities,
she felt the Council should express their opposition. Councilwoman Kaywood
thereupon moved that a letter be prepared for the Mayor's signature urging
Governor Brown to veto AB 1352. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
75-796
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 26_; 1975; 1:30 P.M.
.
OPINION OF COUNTY COUNSEL REGARDING SCtlOOL BOARD OFFICIALS ON CITY COMMISSIONS:
Councilwoman Kaywood requested the City Attorney's Office to review and report
on the County Counsels' opinion that serving concurrently on School Board and
City Commissions within the same city is illegal. She noted that the City of
Anaheim has a unique situation, having several School Boards represented on the
Parks and Recreation Commission because of the joint school/City recreation
program.
YOUTH COUNCIL PROPOSAL: Councilwoman Kaywood reported ~hat tile proposed program
to establish a Youth Council will be considered by the Parks and Recreation
Commission during the month of September, and consequently will not be before
the City Council until some time in October.
STREET LIGHTING REQUESTS - SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD AND CANYON RIM ROAD:
Councilwoman Kaywood reported that pursuant to requests made by the Canyon
General Planning Task Force, bulbs of lower wattage have been installed on
street lights along Santa Ana Canyon Road and shields have been installed on
certain units on the north side of Canyon Rim Road.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn to Wednesday, August 27, 1975,
3:00 P.~i. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned:. 6:25 P.M.
ALONA M. HOUGARD, CITY CLERK
Deputy