1973/01/1673-19
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1973; 1:30 P.Mo
ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - ACCREDITNrION UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE:
Mr. Murdoch advised that suggestions have been received concerning the Anaheim
Chamber of Comm~erce accreditation, urging that the City sponsor some type of
appropriate recognition.
Councilman Thom moved that the City Council sponsor a no-host cel-
ebration to commemorate the accreditation of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
by the United States chamber of Commerce, suggested date being February 9
or February 16, 1973. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED°
By general Council consent, Mayor Dutton was designated the Chairman
of the event.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 3:45 P.M.
City Clerk
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973~ 1:30 P,M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
CITY CLERK: D~ne M. Daoust
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend E. W. Mathias of Zion Lutheran Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAg SALUTE: Councilman William J. Thom led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held December 26,
1972 and January 2, 1973, were approved bnmotion by Councilman Pebley, seconded
by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved tO waive the
reading in full Of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of
the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion, MOTION
~ANY_MOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the
amount of $1,165,203.40, in accordance with the 1972-73 Budget, were approved.
73-22
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973; 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Sherman further cited the heavy congestion on Euclid Street as an-
other reason the carwash function should not be permitted at this site.
Mr. Roy Greenleaf, 1666 Pampas Lane, co-owner of apartments south and
east of the subject property, addressed the Council in opposition and called
attention to the fact that over five-hundred people live in the units on Pampas
Lane; that the street is narrow and presents a problem when emergency equipment
or large trucks are required to use it and any project which would create a
greater use of Pampas Lane would be detrimental to the area.
Mr. George Armstrong, 1135 North Euclid Avenue, expressed his opposition
stating that the Cities of San Diego and San Francisco, in an attempt to control
fumes, have recently canceled all applications for service stations or gasoline
facilities. He noted there are two carwashes, one within three-tenths of a mile,
and one within seven-tenths of a mile from the proposed site, and there are eleven
service stations within the square block. He felt that such a concentration of
this type of activity should be limited.
In reply to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Armstrong disclosed that he is the
proprietor of one of the carwashes referred to as being within a mile of the site
under discussion. Councilman Pebley expressed the opinion that the element of
business competition should not be introduced in hearings pertaining to land use.
The Mayor called for anyone else in opposition, there being no response,
offered the Applicant a few minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Shea again stipulated that his firm will do whatever is required
by the City to conform to the noise limitations of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Further, he advised that the employees are not permitted to blow horns and no
public address system will be installed as they do not wish to annoy any neigh-
bors, residential or commerical. He noted that the carwash referred to pre-
viously in Newport Beach, is located on the main street and commercial develop-
ments are proceeding on all sides of the property. Mr. Shea advised some of the
locations of the other carwashes are directly adjacent to residential use and
on a square foot basis, he stated that his firm's investment of approximately
$500,000.00 would be equal to, or more than, other enterprises in the immediate
area.
Councilman Pebley inquired as to whether this proposed carwash struc-
ture might be situated in some other manner on the property so as not to require
the use of Pampas Lane for ingress and egress.
Mr. Geisler felt that a report from the City Traffic Engineer should
be a prerequisite to a decision, since placing demand for ingress and egress of
the proposed site onto Euclid Street could create more of a problem than it would
on Pampas Lane.
Councilman Sneegas, noting the traffic problems on Euclid, and the
several closed service stations in the City, stated that he thinks the City needs
at least one more good carwash facility, however he does not think that this is
the proper site.
Councilman Pebley noted that subject property is zoned C-i, to which
Councilman Sneegas indicated that retail stores would not generate as much traffic
as a carwash.
Mayor Dutton declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-14: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-14 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1357~ subject to the following
conditions as recommended by the ~nterdepartm~ntal Committee, with the addition
thereto of a condition pertaining to the filing of a parcel map:
73-21
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
According to Mr. Roberts, the Planning Commission noted that the
proposed use would not be located at the intersection of two arterials but
would inject heavy traffic loads onto a residential street and subject vehicles
exiting subject property to insurmountable problems, particularly on attempting
left turns to the south. Further, the Planning Commission considered that the
usage of subject property as a carwash would be detrimental to existing commer-
cial uses established i~ the area.
Plans for the proposed carwash structure were reviewed at the Council
table.
Councilman Pebley observed that the owner of subject property also
owns the two acres adjacent and immediately north of the proposed carwash site,
and if the proposed project was detrimental to the area, then the property owner
would have difficulty developing or selling the remaining portion of his land.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant was present and wished to address
the Council.
Mr. John Martin Shea, representing Beacon Bay Enterprises, utilized
a series of slides in his presentation which depicted completed carwash fac-
ilities now being operated by his company located in the Cities of Newport
Beach, E1 Toro and Orange. The slides illustrated the type of construction
proposed, including interiors and landscaping. Mr. Shea indicated that it is
their position that a well constructed, attractively landscaped facility im-
proves business.
Regarding noise, Mr. Shea reported that a project similar to this
proposal had passed the very stringent noise standards in Fountain Valley.
He advised that a sound engineer has been retained by his company and was pre-
sent to answer questions. Mr. Shea stated that his company-intends to conform
to the City's noise criteria.
Mr. Shea further noted that a carwash relies on impulse business, and
for this reason they would prefer not to locate at the intersection of two ar-
terial streets as it would make aceess to the facility more inconvenient.
Regarding the R-3 residential to the east of subject site, he asked the Council
to consider that sometimes the rear view of retail establishments are unpleas-
ant, whereas the structure he is proposing is attractive, due to the nature of
the building and landscaping provided.
Councilman Dutton remarked that a carwash structure built by Beacon
Bay Enterprises had won recognition from the architecture critic of the Los
Angeles Times, according to the Friday, January 12, 1973 edition.
Mr. Shea further submitted photographs of various carwash structures
built by Beacon Bay Enterprises which were reviewed by the Councilmen and re-
turned to the Applicant.
The Mayor asked if anyone in opposition to the proposed project wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Roger Sherman, 8500 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, represent-
ing the Standard Shoe Store directly fouth of the proposed site, stated that
their objection is based on the fact that the operation of the carwash would
not be compatible with the retail commercial use of their property. He noted
that in the picture of the carwash located at Newport Beach, it was segregated
some distance away from the retail establishments, and he contended that this
should also be the case in this instance. He observed that in connection with
a carwash, there are people in various stages of undress, and there would be
a great deal of attendant noise at the same time his clients would be attempting
to conduct business. He mentioned the recent failure and subsequent closing
of a carwash located near the Broadway Shopping Center and the possibility that
the subject carwash might also be abandoned. He stated that a carwash should
be located in a secondary area and not a prime location such as this in which
his clients have a combined total investment of over one-million dollars.
73-20
.City Hall, Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1973; 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 72-7A: The City Clerk advised that verbal request
has been received this date from the Applicant, Dr. Gale D. Smith for with-
drawal of the application to abandon an alley running northerly from La Palma
Avenue, west of Euclid Avenue. Said abandonment was scheduled for public hear-
ing this date pursuant to Resolution No. 72R-605.
Mr. Norman Smedegaard, Attorney representing the Estate of Joseph C.
Neighbors, addressed the Council. in opposition to the proposed abandonment, and
requested the Applicant's request for withdrawal be accepted
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas~ the
withdrawal of application for Abandonment No. 72-7A was accepted and public
hearing canceled. MOTION CARRIED.
Pb~LIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1357 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 66: Submitted by Edward W. Bonkosky, together with E.I.Ro No. 66 and Committee
Analysis thereof, to establish a carwash in conjunction with an automobile ser-
vice station on C-1 zoned property located at the northeast corner of Euclid and
Pampas Lane, with waivers of:
a. Permitted outdoor uses.
b. Permitted location of service station limited to the intersection
of two arterial highways.
The City Clerk advised that a letter in opposition to the proposed car-
wash, from Warren Strasheim, 2219 West Lincoln, had been received and copies
furnished to the Council.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-325, denied
said conditional use permit and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-324, recommended
that E.I.R. No. 66 be adopted as the Environmental Impact Statement of the Council
only after an addendum has been submitted setting forth mitigating measures re-
garding noise and traffic factors and alternative use of subject property.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
John Martin Shea, Beacon Bay Enterprises, 150 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach,
and public hearing scheduled this'date.
Mr. Roberts briefed the findings of the Environmental Impact Review
Committee and the City Planning Commission recon~endation regarding E.I.R. No.
66.
Councilman Dutton noted the Planning Commission recommendation regard-
ing an addendum to the E.I.R. and requested further information.
Mr. Roberts replied that at the Planning Commission hearing, there was
concern that the Applicant would not be able to comply with the noise standard
of 60 decibels maximum at the property line and for this reason further informa-
tion on how they planned to mitigate the noise factor was requested in the form
of an addendum to also include more detailed consideration of the traffic situa-
tion. He advised that the E.I.R. Committee did not include such recommendation
in their analysis.
Councilman Pebley stated that the Anaheim Municipal Code contains an
ordinance regulating permitted noise levels and that this should suffice to in-
sure that the property will be developed in compliance, since it would prohibit
the carwash from operating if the noise limits are exceeded.
Councilman Dutton concurred with this opinion and thereupon moved that
Environmental Impact Report No. 66, as submitted without addendum be accepted
together with Committee Analysis .thereof, and adopted as Statement of the Council.
Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Roberts noted the location of subject property, the existing uses
and zoning in the immediate area and read the findings on which the City Planning
Commission based their denial. He noted that in conjunction with the carwash
activity, the Applicant proposes a total of ten pump islands for retail gasoline
sales. The carwash structure itself would be a one-story facility and sound
buffering is proposed by locating that portion which contains mechanical equip-
ment two feet below grade with a masonry wall and berm extending three feet above
grade. In addition, the blower units will be roof ventilated. Mr. Roberts noted
that an extensive amount of peripheral landscaping is proposed. The landscaping
areas ranging in width from five feet to ten feet, and the adjacent residential
use to the east would be separated by a six-foot masonry wall in addition to
the landscaping. Vehicular access is planned with one driveway on Euclid Avenue
and two driveways onto Pampas Lane.
City Hall! AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16! 1973; 1:30 P.M.
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerltne of the street
along Pampas Lane for street widening purposes and a 15 foot radius property
line return.
2. That the sidewalks shall be installed along Euclid Street and
Pampas Lane as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications'on file in the office of the City Engineer.
3. That the vehicular access rights, except at approved access
points, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Euclid Street and Pampas
Lane for tree planting purposes.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
6. 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.
7. That a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east
property line.
8. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
9. That a parcel map to record the approved division of subject
property be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
10. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
11. That any proposed parking area lighting shall be directed away
from the adjacent residential parcels.
12. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the
Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
13. That subject propertY shall be developed subst'antially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
14. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 9, above mentioned, shall'be
complied with prior to the con~nencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within
a period of one year from the date hereof, whichever occurs first or such
further time as the Planning Commissionmay grant.
15. That Condition Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13, above mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1357.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
AB SENT: COUNCILMEN:
Pebley, Thom and Dutton
Sneegas
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-14 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1360 - REQUEST
TION STATUS: Submitted by David Do'ring, together with applicatio~ for exemption
declaration status, to establish a cocktail lounge in an existing co~mlercial
structure on C-2 zoned property located at the northwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Carleton Avenue.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-328,
denied said conditional use permit and recommended that exemption declaration
status from the filing of an Environmental Impact Report be granted.
EXEMPTION DECLARATION STATUS: On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by
Councilman Pebley, the City Council received the application for exemption
declaration staius and determined that the impact of said project would be
trivial in nature, thereby requiring no Environmental Impact Report, or
Statement by the Council. MOTION .CARRIED.
73-24
.City Hall~ Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MI.NUTES - Ja-~ar~ .16! 1973! 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Roberts noted the location of subject property, the existin$ uses
and zoning in the in~nediate area and briefed the findings of the City Planning
Commission. He advised the Applicant intends to remodel an existing structure,
now being used as a pet shop, into a cocktail lounge and in conjunction, demolish
the existing dwelling to the west, clearing this area for vehicular access and
to provide eleven parking stalls.
Plans from the file were reviewed by the Council. The Mayor asked if
the Applicant was present and wished to address the Council.
Mr. John Swink, 707 West North Street, the Applicant's representative,
was of the opinion this proposal would be forthe betterment of the area as the
appearance of the property would be improved as a result of the remodeling and
the removal of the unsightly residential structure. He indicated there would be
no openings in the west wall of the remodeled structure and the proposed cocktail
lounge will accommodate only 40 people. That due to the small size of the pro-
ject it would not create a nuisance to tile neighboring commercial and residential
properties. Further, the present commercial use has no off-street parking fac-
ilities, and it would appear to him, that the eleven parking stalls would be an
asset.
Councilman Dutton noted that the.eleven parking spaces plus the on-
street parking, would still be inadequate for the proposed cocktail lounge.
Applicant Mr. David Doering, 1416 West Damon, presented pictures taken
of subject property in its present state and advised that he is seeking to improve
his property and to eliminate hazardous and unsightly conditions which exist.
Mr. Doering related that neither of his two prior business ventures
on the property have been self-supporting and he feels this proposal is the best
approach to realize profit while making an improvement to the area .as well. He
stated that this renovation will alleviate as-many as ten cars being parked along
the frontage on Lincoln Avenue as well as removing the unsightly and hazardous
structure located at 1207 West Lincoln.
Mr. Doering further informed the Council that he bought an existing
cocktail license which does not require food be provided in connectionwith the
operation. He stated that he had approached the restaurant operator regarding
a joint operation and was unsuccessful, however he does plan to add food service
to the cocktail operation in two years when the restaurant lease terminates.
Councilman Dutton inquired as to whether the parking he would provide ·
would also be used by the restaurant patrons.
Mr. Doering replied that the restaurant proprietor has an arrangement
with a gas station nearby for parking, however this is not sufficient, and he
agreed to the use of the additional parking he will be providing.
Councilman Sneegas asked what type of cocktail lounge he proposes.
Mr. Doering stated no entertainment is proposed and a cocktail lounge will serve
the patrons of the adjacent restaurant. He noted the closest cocktail lounge to
subject property was the Howard Johnson Restaurant to thew est and another one
12 blocks to the east.
The Mayor asked if anyone in oppostion wished to address the City
Council.
Mrs. Raymond Sullivan, 1122 West Diamond, stated that she and her
neighbors object to the proposal primarily because o£ the close proximity of the
proposed cocktail lounge to their homes and the resultant noise and litter which
it would generate. In addltion, she noted the possibility that the patrons would
use the adjacent residential streets for parking.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council,
there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO, 73R-15: ..councilman Sneegas offered' Resolution No. 73R-15 for
adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1360.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973! 1:30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NOo 1360.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley and Thom
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-15 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2448: Submitted by R. C. Jewett and Dixie Stephens,
to permit a retail car care center on M-1 zoned property located on the south
side of Katella Avenue, east of State College Boulevard, with waiver of:
a. Permitted uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 43: The City Council at their meeting held
December 19, 1972,determined the project proposed under Variance No. 2448
would be trivial in nature and no Environmental Impact Report need be filed.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-297,
granted said variance subject to the following conditions:
1. That the sidewalks shall be installed along Katella Avenue as
required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and speci-
fications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Katella Avenue for street light-
ing purposes.
3. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the
Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior' to the
issuance of a building permit.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view.
6. That a parcel map to record the approved division of subject
property be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be re-
corded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That the final parking plan shall be approved by the Development
Services Department, and any landscaped areas in the parking area shall be
protected with six-inch high concrete curbs and concrete wheel stops shall be
provided for parking spaces as required by the Development Services Department.
9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the city of Anaheim marked
Exhibit No. 1.
10. That Condition Nos. 2 and 6, above mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution
or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of
one year from date hereof, whichever o~curs first, or such further time as the
(Planning Commission) City Council may grant.
11. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8, above mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
12. That there shall be no outdoor storage of old tires and used parts
as stipulated to by the petitioner.
Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested
by Councilman Thom at the December 19, 1972 City Council meeting and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Mr. Roberts noted the location of the property and adjacent land use
and zoning. He advised that the development plans submitted indicate that the
facility will conform with M-1 site development standards, and plans indicate
one-quarter of the structure would be used as a sales room and three-quarters
would be auto service bays.
73226
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Roberts reported the Petitioner stipulated at the Planning
Commission hearing that all work would be performed indoors; that there would
be no outdoor storage of used tires or parts, and signing will be kept to a
23-square foot wall sign.
Council. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his agent wished to address the
Mr. Louis Mann, Bomaine Corporation, 2121 South Bundy Drive, Los
Amgeles, stated that Mr. Roberts had adequately covered the salient points and
offered to answer Council's questions.
Councilman Thom asked if the major portion of the business involved
sales of tires, batteries and similar automobile accessories and equipment.
Mr. Mann explained that the proposed facility will be operated in con-
junction with a parent corporation located three blocks north where tires, shock
absorbers and other automotive equipment are sold to members only who pick up
the merchandise at the warehouse and bring it to the subject site, for installa-
tion. He indicated that this phase of the operation became necessary to provide
complete and better service to their customers. He again stated that the entire
operation would be conducted indoors.
Councilman Thom referred to the statement in the interdepartmental re-
port that approximately 1,110 square foot of the proposed building would be used
as a sales room and requested clarification.
Mr. Mann replied that the area designated as a "sales area" is the area
where the customers wait while their cars are being serviced.
Council. The Mayor asked if anyone in opposition wished to address'the City
Mr. Phillip Quarre, 500 Resh Street, representing the Hartmann Cor-
poration, owners of the adjacent property to the east and south of subject pro-
perty stated they are primarily opposed to the variance because it would permit
retail sales in the M-1 zone. Additionally they consider the car care center
degrading to the present industrial and recreational facilities in the immediate
area and an unwelcome sight to visitors traveling to the Anaheim Stadium. He
maintained that this type of operation should not be permitted in a prime indus-
trial area.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council and there
being no response, offered the Applicant time for rebuttal.
Mr. Mann observed that the 50-unit motel previously approved for the
site by Council is as nonconforming to the M-1 zone as the proposed use would be
and further their activity would be similar to what is being presently conducted
on three corners of the intersection and all up and down Katella Avenue and State
College Boulevard, and would not change the character of the neighborhood. Mr.
Mann stated that this location is most desirable because of its access to the
freeway and relative prominence which would make it easy for their customers to
locate.
Councilman Dutton asked Mr. Mann if he had stated there would be no
retail sales at this location.
Mr. Mann replied that he had stated they would not sell tires at this
location, however, if in connection with services performed it is discovered that
additional parts are required, such as shock absorbers, front end parts~ etc,
which were not purchased at the warehouse, then they will sell and install such
equipment at the car care facility.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there
being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Thom stated that he is of the opinion that the operation
of this type of facility would change the character and pose a threat to the
~it~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 197.3! 1:30 P.M,
integrity of the M-1 area, whereas, he did not think this was the case with
motels, which have proven to be compatible with light industrial use. He
thereupon offered a resolution denying Variance No. 2448 for adoption.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared this resolution failed to carry.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-16: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-16 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2448, subject to the conditions recommended
by the City Planning Commission.
Prior to voting, Councilman Pebley remarked that he had to consider
the Planning Commission's action on this variance was after a thorough evalu-
ation, and further he could see no difference in the the type of activity to
be conducted under this variance and the adjacent service station activity,
with the exception of gasoline sales.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE
NO. 2448.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
Thom
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-16 duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70-59 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Russell Nelson dated
December 4, 1972 was submitted for a one-year extension of time to Reclassifica-
tion No. 69-70-59 for compliance with certain conditions, pursuant to Resolution
No. 70R-351, together with reports of the Development Services Department and
City Engineer.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, two re-
troactive one-year extensions of time for Reclassification No. 69-70-59 from
January 14, 1971 to January 8, 1973 and an additional one-year extension to
expire January 8, 1974, was granted as recommended by the Development Services
Department. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-35 AND VARIANCE NO. 2338: Request of Charles A. Ross
dated November 8, 1972 was submitted for extension of time to Reclassification
No. 71-72-35 and Variance No. 2338 for compliance with certain conditions pur-
suant to Resolution No. 72R-166, together With reports of the Development
Services Department and City Engineer.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, a
one-year extension of time for Reclassification No. 71-72-35 and Variance No.
2338 was granted, to expire November 2, 1973 as recommended by the Development
Services Department. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NO. 2139 - TERMINATION: Request dated December 11~ 1972 by J. C. Lantz,
for termination of said variance approved pursuant to Resolution No. 70R-167
for storage of trailers, campers and boats to the rear of a motel on R-A zoned
property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Dale Avenue, due
to the fact the property was developed under Conditional Use Permit No. 1175,
was submitted together with recommendation of the Development Services Depart-
ment.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-17: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 73R-17 for
adoption, terminating all proceedings under Variance No. 2139.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2139 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION
NO. 70R-167 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
73-~28
C__ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January lp~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COb'NC ILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-17 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST - WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEE - SECURITY HEALTH PLAN: Correspondence dated
December 1, 1972 from Wallace H., Shapiro, Administrator, Security Health Plan,
requesting waiver of the business license fee was submitted, together with reports
from the Police Department and City Attorney.
On recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman. Dutton moved that
the business license fee be waived as provided by Chapter 3.04.130 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, for the Security Health Plan. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - EL MODENA HIGH SCHOOL - USE OF ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: Request was sub-
mitted by Mr. Bob Lester, E1Modena High School for use of the Anaheim Hills Golf
Course for their high school golf team three days per week during the hours of
3:15 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Robert Davis reported that the Parks and Recreation Department has
reviewed the request and recommended that it be granted on the same terms and
conditions as granted the Anaheim Union High School District.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Attorney was authorized to prepare a resolution granting E1Modena High
School the use of Anaheim Hills Golf Course, for one year, as recommended by the
Parks and Recreation Department. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - WAIVER OF WINDOW GUARDS - CULTURAL ARTS CENTER BUILDING: Request of B. W.
Jordan, on behalf of the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts, that the
item reading "Window Guards - fabricate and install guards on 17 windows on west
side of building", as noted on page No. 4, line No. 21 of the sublease agreement
be waived, inasmuch as the windows on the west side of the former HOrace Mann
School have been replaced with acrylic material instead of glass.
Mr. Murdoch advised that before approval of this request a similar
waiver must be obtained by the City from the Anaheim City School District, as
this condition is also included in the City's lease with the School District.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
waiver of the requirement for window guards on seventeen windows located on the
west side of the Anaheim Cultural Arts Center Building was granted, subject to
obtaining the Anaheim City School District's approval of waiving this requirement
in the City's lease. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held December 27~ 1972, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council information and consideration:
VARIANCE NO. 2430 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 61: Submitted by Union
Oil Company to establish 23 one-story "mini-warehouses" buildings on M-1 zoned
property located at the northwest corner of La Palma and Tustin Avenues, with
waivers of:
a. Minimum structural setback. (Withdrawn)
b. Minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-320,
recommended that due to the insignificant impact of the request under Variance
No. 2430 upon the environment, no Environmental Impact Report be required, and
pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-330, granted said variance in part, subject to
conditions.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council received Environmental Impact Report No. 61, and Committee Analysis
thereof, together with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and deter-
mined the impact of said project would be trivial in nature, thereby requiring
no Environmental Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Variance No. 2430.
VARIANCE NO. 2463 AND REquEST FOR EXEMPTION DECLARATION STATUS: Submitted by
Harold and Helen Thorpe~ to allow pet supply sales and dog grooming in an ex-
isting residential structure on C-1 zoned property located at the southwest
corner of Victor Avenue and Harbor Boulevard (502 Victor Avenue), with waiver of:
73-29
.City Hall! Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 16; 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
a. Limited commercial use of a residential structure.
The City Planning Cormnission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-333,
granted said variance subject to conditions and recommended an exemption de-
claration status be also granted.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City
Council received the application for exemption declaration status, and deter-
mined that the project would be trivial in nature, and that no Environmental
Impact Report be required. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Council took no further action on Variance No. 2463.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1349 AND REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION DECLARATION STATUS:
Submitted by Pauline E. Hinricks, to establish an auto rental-leasing agency
in an existing commercial building on C-2 zoned property located on the north
side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Topeka Street, with waiver of:
a. Minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-335,
granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions, and, recommended
that an exemption declaration status be granted.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council received the application for exemption declaration status, and
determined that the project would be trivial in nature and no Environmental
Impact Report be required. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit
No. 1349.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359: (Exemption to the filing .of an Environmental
Impact Report was granted by the City Council, December 19, 1972) Submitted
by Leo Freedman, to establish a te~-story hotel tower, 106.5 feet in height on
R-A zoned property located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Freedman Way, (Hyatt House) with waiver of:
a. Minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-329,
granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions.
The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit
No. 1359.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1361 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 69: Sub-
mitted by Robertshaw Controls Company, to establish an automobile sales and.
service agency on R-A zoned property located on the southwest side of Manchester
Avenue, north of Orangewood Avenue, with waivers of:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Maximum permitted building height.
c. Minimum depth of a required rear yard.
d. Maximum height of a free-standing sign within 300 feet of a
residential structure.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-336,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 69 be adopted as Council's Statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72-337, granted said conditional use permit subject to
conditions.
On motion by Councilman Pebley~ seconded by Councilman Dutton~ the
City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 69 and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with City Planning Commission recommendation, and adopted said rePort as the
Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit
No. 1361.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO! 1111 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request for an extension
of time to comply with conditions of approval under Resolution No. 69R-286~
for the construction of a 50-unit motel on M-1 zoned property located south
and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission by motion granted a one-year extension
of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1111 and recommended that the City Council
take similar action.
73-30
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1973~ 1:30 PoM.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, a one-
year extension of time was granted to Conditional Use Permit No. 1111 to ex-
pire November 20, 1973. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1312 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request for an extension
of time to comply with conditions of approval for the establishment of a private
educational institution with dormitories, gymnasium, library, classrooms and an
athletic field in conjunction with a church facility and day care nursery on
R-A zoned property located on the west side of Western Avenue, south of Orange
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission by motion, granted a six-month extension
of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1312, to expire June 12, 1973, as recom-
mended by the Development Services Department.
The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit
No. 1312.
TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. 8196 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1366): Developer, Southern
California S & L Associated; property located on the east side of Nutwood Street,
approximately 900 feet north of Katella Avenue, proposed for PRD Subdivision,
containing 97 proposed R-3 zoned lots (68-69-85).
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, action
on Tentative Map, Tract No. 8196 was continued, to be considered in conjunction
with Conditional Use Permit No. 1366. MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE MAP; TRACT NO. 7444~ REVISION NO. 1 (CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT NOo 1368 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 78): Developer, Anaheim Hills Inc. and Texaco
Ventures, Inc.; property located on the north side of'Nohl Ranch Road, east of
Anaheim Hills Road, proposed for PRD Subdivision, containing 84 pro'posed PC
lots. (71-72-44)
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, action
on Tentative Map, Tract No. 7444, Revision No. 1, was continued, to be considered
in conjunction with Conditional USe Permit No. 1368 and Environmental Impact
Report No. 78. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-18 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 650-B AND 660-B: In accordance with
the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution
No. 73R-18 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM-
ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: THE MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND LA PALMA AVENUE STREET AND STORM
DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NOS. 650-B AND
660-B. (Bebek Corporation - alternate bid, $383,174.80)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-18 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-19 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 658-B: In accordance with the 'recom-
mendations of the City Engineer~ Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-19
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM-
ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVtRMENT: THE ORANGE-AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, FROM
BEACH BOULEVARD TO WEST CITY LIMITS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 658-B. (Silveri and Ruiz Construction Company - base bid, $175,458.75)
73-31
City Hall; Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1973; 1:30 PoM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-19 duly passed and adopted..
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of
Public Works, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution Nos. 73R-20, 73R-21 and
73R-22 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-20 - WORK ORDER NO. 661-A: 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 PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE RIO VISTA STREET - STREET
IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 418 FEET NORTH OF TO APPROXIMATELY 136
FEET NORTH OF DUTCH AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO.
661-A. (R. J. Noble Company)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-21 - WORK ORDER NO. 663-A: 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 PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE BELHAVEN STREET STREET
IMPROVEMENT FROM BALL ROAD TO APPROXIMATELY 203 FEET SOUTH 'OF BALL ROAD,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 663-A. (3. B. Crosby Co., Inc~)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-22 - WORK ORDER NO. 1243: 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 PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT,TO WIT: THE WEST STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT,
FROM APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET SOUTH OF BALL ROAD TO WINSTON ROAD, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1243. (J. L. Scott Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 73R-20, 73R-21 and 73R-22 duly
passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NOr 73R-23 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution
No. 73R-23 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING
CERTAIN DEEDS A1ND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Leslie R. Boatwright;
Hans Mahotka and Theresia Mahotka; Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church
of Anaheim, California)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-23 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - DETECTIVE SEDANS: The City Manager reported on informal
bids received for the purchase of seven detective sedans as follows, and since
variety in vehicles is desirable for Police undercover WOrk, recommended accep-
tance of the low bid for four units and the second low bid for three units:
73-32
..~it~ Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 16; 1973; 1:30 P,M.
VENDOR
La Habra Dodge, La Habra
Santa Ana Dodge, Santa Ana
TOTAL AMOUNT; INCLUDING TAX
(Charger - 3 units) $10,588.50
(Charger - 3 units) 10,849.73
McCoy Ford, Anaheim (Torino - 3 units) 11,451.16
McPeek Chrysler Plymouth, Anaheim (Satellite coupe - 4 units) 13,382.21
Councilman Sneegas questioned whether local dealers were invited to
submit proposals as he preferred to buy locally. He also questioned whether the
City saves money when it becomes necessary for an officer to drive a unit any
distance for servicing.
Mr. Murdoch answered the City solicits bids from all local dealers
however some do not choose to bid because their manufacturers no longer financi-
ally assist the individual dealers so they can bid a fleet purchase. He stated
it has been the policy of the City to purchase first from an Anaheim businessman,
and if this is not possible, then from an Orange County businessman.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the low
bid of McPeek Chrysler Plymouth in the amount of $13,382.21 and the second low
bid of La Habra Dodge in the amount of $10,588.50 were accepted and purchase
authorized. MOTION CARRIED.
COST/FEE STUDY: At the request of Councilman Pebley at the December 19, 1972 meeting,
a cost/fee study determining the relationship between fees charged to process
zone and land use petitions by the Development Services Department and
actual City cost was submitted by the Development Services Department.
The City Manager cor~nented that the approach taken by the Development
Services Department on the cost analysis was to determine approximately what the
overall costs for handling zoning application of various types were, noting the
relatively minor cases and those which require a great deal of staff time for
processing and analysis. He further noted that there was a substantial differ-
ence in the various types of zoning actions and perhaps the Council may wish to
consider a graduated scale of rates which relates to the value of the project
rather than a single rate for each type of classification.
Mayor Dutton asked if the fees charged by the Building Division and
actual Building Division operative costs didn't offset the loss experienced by
the Development Services Department for processing the various types of zoning
applications.
Mr. Murdoch replied that this year's Building Division Budget reflected
approximately $274,000.00 for operating costs and an anticipated revenue of
$556,000.00. The revenue includes other activities in addition to zoning, and
at this time is running below expectations.
Councilman Pebley asked how Anaheim compared to other cities, partic-
ularly other cities in Orange County.
Assistant Development Services Director Ron Thompson replied that
approximately 75 cities were surveyed and there was a wide range in philosophy
and variety of fees charged, noting that the County of Orange charges a basic
$350.00 minimum fe~, plus $50.00 for each sectional district map involved, plus
$1.00 per acre for zone changes, and, for tentative tract maps they charge a
$300.00 basic fee plus $1.00 per acre. Variances and conditional use permits
are handled by the zoning administrator so lesser fees were charged; however
any case going to the COunty Planming commission, the basic fee charge is $125.00.
Mr. Thompson reported that the only city apparently recovering all costs
incurred in zoning actions is the City of San Diego, explaining they charge a
basic $700.00 deposit and through their cost accounting system, keep tabulation
of all cost incurred. Upon completion, the applicant either is billed for an
additional cost incurred by the City or he is refunded any unused portion of the
$700.00 deposit.
After brief discussion, Council requested the Development Services
Department to prepare a chart, for comparison purposes, depicting fees charged
by other cities including appeal fees.
Mr. Thompson pointed out that one of their recommendations in the study
reflected charging an additional fee in order to recover costs for reading of an
ordinance on individual parcels which were covered by a blanket resolution of
intent, similar to those parcels in the northeastern industrial area, noting the
high publication costs involved in legal advertising.
73~33
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Californis - COUNCI~ ~NUTES - January 16~ 1973~ 1:30 P~M,
Councilman Dutton expressed the opinion that by taking economics into
consideration, and if a developer had to pay actual costs incurred for process-
ing these variances, requests from code requirements in order to obtain addi-
tional lots within a project would decrease.
Mr. Thompson reported the study attempted to provide a method whereby
the City could recover costs for the procedure rather than by any one depart-
ment. He further stated there appears to be a direct correlation between the
evaluation of a project and the amount of staff time spent processing and
analyzing the project.
City Attorney Joe Geisler stated that some measure other than
value should be used since at the time of application for reclassification or
conditional use permit, it is impossible to determine actual value,so an arbi-
tary figure would be applied. He suggested that in residential projects, using
a "per residential unit" measurement and in commercial and industrial projects,
using a "per square foot" method. In other words an objective measure rather
than a subjective one should apply.
Mr. Geisler further explained that all zoning ordinances are actually
a protection for the citizens. When the City is conducting hearing procedures
on zoning matters, it is doing so for the protection of the citizenry of
Anaheim, not for any one individual. This in his opinion, would be justifica-
tion for a portion of zoning costs to be borne by the taxpayer because he, in
fact, is the one being protected.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that a further recommendation of the report,
was that Council may want to consider zoning hearings on some of the larger
areas that are similar in nature such as the northeast industrial area, rather
than parcel by parcel, making parcel by parcel zoning the exception. This
procedure would cut down the cost to both the individual and the City. He
stated this approach would firmly indicate Council's intent to rezone and
would more closely comply with State law that requires a zoning ordinance to
be consistent with the General Plan.
It was the general feeling of the Council that more information was
necessary before making a determination whether or not the zoning and land use
petition fees should be increased and directed the Development Services Depart-
ment to investigate further and report their findings as soon as they were
available.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-24: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 73R-24 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF
HAL HAMILTON, AN INDIVIDUAL. (Term, January 29 through May 29, 1973 -
Parks and Recreation - Program Coordinator)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-24 duly passed and adopted.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. City of Garden Grove - Resolution No. 4345-72 - Opposing the
concept of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and any similar legisla-
tion with similar sanctions that do not have adequate local input prior to
adoption, and requesting support of other jurisdictions and organizations to
modify this act and obtain adequate local input prior to the adoption of this
and any other legislation.
b. State Division of Highways - Notice of Public Hearing -
January 31, 1973 - Ret Proposed improvements on the Santa Aha Freeway between
0.1 mile south to 0.6 mile north of Katella Avenue in the City of Anaheim.
c. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - November 22,
1972.
73~34
Qity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
d. Building Division - Financial and Operating Report for the
Months of December 1971 and December 1972.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3118: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3118 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-3 - C-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3118 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3119: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3119 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-22 - R-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3119 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3120: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3120 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-12 - R-1 - Tract No. 7932)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3120 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3121: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3121 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-31 (4) - M-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3121 duly passed and adopted.
73-35
City Hall! Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973; 1:30 PoM.
ORDINANCE NO. 3122: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3122 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-15 (3) - R-H-lO,000 -
Tract No. 7568)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3122 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3123: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3123 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONINGo. (72-73-15 - R-S-5000 - Tract No. 4693)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN .-
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3123 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3124: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3124 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-45 - R-S-5000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3124 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3125: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3125 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-12 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSEI~TT ~ coInqCI~N~
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
~tephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3125 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3126: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3126 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-35 - R-3 - Parcel Nos. B
and C)
73-36
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call.Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3126 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3127: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3127 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69 (53) - M-l)
ORDINANCE NO. 3128: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3128 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-20 - C-R)
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-25: On the recommendation of the Utilities Director, Councilman
Pebley offered Resolution No. 73R-25 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 71R-478 PERTAINING TO RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
Nonm
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-25 duly passed and adopted.
SOLICITATION OF FUNDS - NORTH ORANGE COUNTY PARENT GROUP FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AND
ADULTS: Application filed by Connie R. Greedy of the North Orange County Parent
Group for Handicapped Children and Adults for solicitation of charitable' funds
to be used for orthopedic equipment for classrooms of the Woodcrest School special
education unit for handicapped children of Orange County, by sale of candy to
people door-to-door and at local banks and shopping centers from February 1 to
28, 1973, was submitted by the City Manager.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom, application
for solicitation of charitable funds submitted by the North Orange County Parent
Group for Handicapped Children and Adults was approved for the period of
February 1 to 28, 1973, in accordance with provisions of the Chapter 7.32 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED.
HOUSE MOVINGS - VICINITY OF ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Councilman Sneegas referred
to a letter advising the Council of an unsafe situation regarding houses which
have been set up on blocks in preparation for moving in the immediate vicinity
of Amaheim Memorial Hospital and inquired whether any corrective actions had
been taken.
Mr. Ronald Thompson reported that he and the Chief Building Inspector
had surveyed the situation this date and will ~¢onfer with the City Attorney's
O~£1ce shortly to determine what action can be taken by the City.
Mr. Geisler advised that he has not had an opportunity to investigate
the situation and was not certain whether a permit is required to begin prepara-
tion for the moving of a house, such as in this case. If the situation is a
violation of a City ordinance, there would be no problem in abating it, and if
it constitutes a "public nuisance", then the City may begin legal action, however
he stated that long before it could be considered a public nuisance, which w~uld
be extremely difficult to prove, they could file their own lawsuit as a "private
nuisance". .~
73-37
.City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16! 1973; 1:30 P,M.
Councilman Thom stated he was of the opinion that if the situation
is hazardous to children, as reported by members of the audience, then some
measurer should be taken by the City and asked Mr. Thompson to report back to
the Council as to what will be done to alleviate the situation.
Councilman Dutton assured those interested parties in the audience
that their complaint has. been directed to the appropriate department and if
any action can be taken it will be taken with dispatch.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT REGARDING 1972 GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION - MURDOCH AND
PIERSALL: Councilman Thom asked the City Attorney when the Council may expect the
report requested regarding the 1972 Grand Jury investigation of Mr. Murdoch
and Mr. Piersall.
Mr. Geilser replied that he would like to have other Attorneys in
his office also read the material received so his report will comprise a
consensus of opinions, and some of the Attorneys involved have not completed
the reading and analysis of the information sent to him by the Grand Jury, and
it is for this reason that preparation of the report has taken more time than
originally anticipated. However, he estimated the report will be ready for
presentation to the Council in approximately four weeks.
RECESS: Councilman Thom moved to recess to 7:00 p.m., Councilman Pebley seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS:
PRE SENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
Mayor Dutton called the City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10 AND VARIANCE NO. 2426 (TENTATIVE TRACT
NOS. 7945; 7946; 7947 AND 7948;~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOo 60): Submitted by
Woodman Farming Co. - Developer: Leadership Housing Systems Inc.; property
located at the northwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street. Reclass-
ification and code waivers were requested to construct a 552-unit statutory
condominium complex.
The City Planning Cormnisston pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-218,
recormnended that Reclassification No. 72-73-10 be disapproved and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72-219, denied Variance No. 2426.
Following duly noticed public hearing held on September 19, 1972,
Resolution of Intent No. 72R-406 to reclassify said property to the R-3 zone
and Resolution No. 72R-407 granting Variance No. 2426 were adopted by the
City Council.
Request for rehearing submitted by Mr. R. H. Bevins, 136 West Whiting
Avenue, was denied at the October 31, 1972 meeting, however, at the December 19,
1972 evening meeting when discussion of E.I.R. No. 60 was held, rehearing was
again requested by the Cerritos-Walnut'Association, and granted with public
hearing scheduled this date; 7:00 p,m,~ to reconsider the previous action.
The Cerrit0s-Walnut Association previously submitted a petition
dated November 21, 1972, purportedly containing approximately 900 signatures
indicating opposition to the proposed project.
Councilman Dutton requested clarification from the Councilmen, as
to whether they wished to hear all of the informationwhtch had previously
been reviewed, or to ltm/t the discussion to new evidence.
Councilman Thom suggested that a recapitulation of evidence, both
pro and con, be heard as well as any new input, prior to considering rescinding
Council's prior 'zoning action.
73-38
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
At the request of Mayor Dutton, Mr. Roberts gave a brief summary of
the location of subject property, surrounding land uses and zoning. He advised
that the Applicant had requested change in zone from R-A to R-3 and the follow-
ing waivers from site development standards:
a. Lot frontage on a public street required.
b. Building setback abutting an arterial highway.
c. Minimum distance between buildings.
Mr. Roberts stated that the Applicant's plan provided for division
of the 38 acres into four parcels, each of which would be developed as a separ-
ate tract. The Applicant proposes that the ownership structure be a statutory
condominium which calls for sale of airspace as opposed to the postage stamp
lot concept, as seen in a planned residential development. According to the
plan, the density would be 17.6 dwelling units per net residential acre, and
total coverage 54.7%
Mr. Roberts further advised that the Applicant proposes to provide
one car port for each unit plus 584 open parking spaces for a total of slightly
over two parking spaces per unit throughout the development. Mr. Roberts re-
ported that the Applicant proposes to develop the project in four phases begin-
ning with a northeasterly quadrant and radiating counter clock wise, with the
quadrant at the intersection of Walnut and Cerritos developed as the last phase.
Mr. Roberts advised that the General Plan designates the southerly
half of subject property appropriate for medium density or R-3 zone (which zone
allows up to 36 units per net residential acre) and the northerly half has been
designated low-medium residential or R-2 zone (which permits a maximum of 18
units per net acre). He pointed out that in the prior hearing it Was noted that
the R-3 requested by the developer over the entire property, would not implement
the low-medium designation recommended for the northerly half of subject property.
Councilman Pebley noted-the General Plan designations for these parcels
and stated that the people in the audience should be made aware of the fact that
according to the projections of the General Plan, the property could be developed
to a density of approximately 845 units overall, instead of the 552 units as
proposed.
Councilman Thom observed that the General Plan designates only what
may be appropriate for an area, and felt it was not proper to discuss a parcel
of property, which is presently zoned R-A, as if the developer could build an
R-2 or R-3 project as a matter of right based on the projected zoning on the
General Plan. He reiterated that no zoning ordinance on the property had yet
been read and in this discussion the property should be considered R-A, which
it still is, and as it was when it first came before the Council.
Mr. Geisler advised that the R-A zone is considered a "holding zone",
not a development zone and nothing could be built until zoning is approved.
Further, he stated that the designations suggested by the General Plan were
adopted following public hearings before both the City Planning Commission and
the City Council.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant was present and wished to present a
recapitulation or new evidence.
Mr. Robert Kendall, Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 3501 Harbor
Boulevard, indicated that their position in connection with this proceeding is
that there has been essentially no new evidence submitted, and noted that the
original resolution of intent to change the zone was adopted following officially
noticed public hearing on September 19, 1972, and at that time those in opposi-
tion did have an opportunity to be heard. He informed the Council that he would
address his remarks briefly to the various concerns expressed by the people
living in the immediate area of the proposed project.
Mr. Kendall stated that in light of the continued community interest
in this development, his firm contacted some of those people in the immediately
adjacent area (within a 300 to 400-foot radius) to canvass their opinions and
this effort, although limited, resulted in 15 to 18 signatures in support of
the proposal. (This petition was not submitted at open meeting.)
City Hall; Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 16; 1973; 1:30 P.Mo
Mr. Kendall addressed himself to the concern expressed by some mem-
bers of the community regarding the possibility of failure of this business
venture stating that in his opinion this is a legitimate concern with such an
extensive building program. He believed the primary cause of this concern is
the typical apartment project where a developer may build 300 or 400 units,
and then discover later that his occupancy rate is 50% or less and he is forced
by these circumstances to seek governmental subsidy or to rent indiscriminately,
in an attempt to salvage his investment.
Mr. Kendall pointed out that the construction of this project is
planned in four phases, and when the first phase is complete it will include
all amenities which relate to that area of the project, as well as the recrea-
tion area and ingress and egress onto public streets. Althought it is most
unlikely, according to Mr. Kendall should it occur that Leadership Housing
Systems, Inc. encounters financial or operating difficulity prior to construc-
tion of the remaining three phases, the first phase as well as any successive
component phase would produce a completly self sufficient project. He advised
that if faced with the situation it would still be in their interest to sell
these units, rather than turn to a rental program. Additionally, he emphasized
that the suggested price range for the units will be comparable to the average
resale values in the immediate area.
Mr. Kendall was of the opinion that this project, as compared with
the typical apartment unit, would attract a more desirable, less transient
element, noting that in order to qualify for a conventional purchase loan, the
buyer will have to earn between $1,100.00 and $1,200,00 per month.
Mr. Kendall referred to the transition in recent years of better
residential and commercial development on the fringes of the City, and the
resultant exodus of population needed to sustain an active urban area, which
has been a concern to planning consultants and architects. ~The impetus now
should be, according to Mr. Kendall, to reverse the situation, and attempt with
good developments, to attract people back into the center city. However, in
doing this the price of land must be considered objectively. A property such
as the site under discussion is equally expensive to develop no matter whether
it is developed commercially, or to R-3 or single family. He contended that
he would be financially unable to provide homes within the price range that
prospective buyers are seeking, or could afford if required to build to a
density factor of 10 to 12 units per acre. Mr. Kendall further advised that
the difference between 10 to 12 units to the acre and 17.6 units is not dra-
matic because of the type of family which will buy the units they offer, and
the stage of life they will be in. He stated that this factor will be covered
in more detail by Mr. Woodard.
In further discussing planning theory and appropriate land use in
urban areas, Mr. Kendall pointed out that the subject property is bounded on
the east entirely by commercial use and a substantial R-3 development to the
south. He stated that the proposed medium density develUpment would act as a
buffer zone between the existing R-1 to the north and the commercial and
apartments to the south.
Mr. Kendall addressed himself to the concerns expressed by the
Cerritos-Walnut Association in the discussion of E.I.R. No. 60 regarding the
school situation with a report that hfs company had made inquiries to the
school districts involved and were informed that Loara High School can accom-
modate 200 additional students, and when it reaches capacity, Anaheim High
School would be able to accept additional students. At the junior high school
level, they were told that Ball 3unior High has reached the saturation point,
but that a proposed site at Broadway and Loara has been selected for new junior
high school construction in the future. The elementary school, they were
informed, have seen a decline in attendance over the past few years and the
Palm Lane School should be able to accommodate the students anticipated from
this project. Mr. Kendall submitted that in light of this information there
would be no extraordinary difficulty in providing schools for these additional
children and maintained that the lag between demand and supply would not be
in excess of the usual semester or two, and these additional students would
not necessitate'double sessions.
73-40
.City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973; 1:30 P.Mo
Mr. Stuart Woodard, 1781 Skypark Circle, Irvine, Architect and Planner
for Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., indicated that his presentation w~uld be
centered on three major points:
1. That higher construction and land costs have produced an impasse
to the traditional type of condominium or townhouse design.
2. A review of the plan itself and the merits of this new concept.
3. A review of statistics which indicate that the difference between
the two densities (10 to 12 units versus 17.6 units to the acre) are very minor.
Mr. Woodard presented a series of slides, which depicted schematics
for a condominium project in Westlake. Using different colors, the slides il-
lustrated the ratio of open space to road, parking and building areas on a 15
acre site plan developed to 10 units per acre, and then compared to 13 units and
15 units per acre. Mr. Woodard explained the advantages of the remote parking
concept, in which one-half of the parking spaces are not located immediately
adjacent to the dwelling unit, which has, in this instance, permitted them to
leave 15% more open space with 15 units per acre than on the 10 units per acre
plan. This is the same type of concept proposed in the project under discussion,
Mr. Woodard reported.
In response to question from the audience, Mr. Woodard explained that
the maximum parking distance from a dwelling unit would be 75 feet.
Mr. Woodard then showed slides which illustrated different facets of
the Cerritos-Walnut project, including individual building structure, project
schematics~ road system, the four open areas at the corners, parking courts~
pedestrian traffic system, landscaped mall, and the recreational area. An aerial
view slide depicted the existing land uses to the north and south, east and west~
and in Mr. Woodard's opinion indicates the excellent use of subject property as
a transitional area from high density land use to the south to more rural use to
the east and north.
Mr. Woodard advised that statistics obtained from a survey done by
Walker and Lee reveal that with a density factor of 12 units to the acre 558
children w~uld be the average~ as compared to 552 children from a project with
17.6 units at this price range, and for this type of dwelling unit. In terms of
population, the proposed project is expected to generate a population of 1,545
people~ whereas at 12 units the population would be 1~300, a difference of 250
people. There are 993 automobiles expected to be generated by this project as
compared to 782 with 12 units to the acre~ or a difference of 200 automobiles.
In conclusion, Mr. Woodard stated that he feels the project has strong
merits and is a unique condominium concept, the design of which has not been
criticized since the project was introduced in September, and further, he con-
tended, that the difference in densities from 12 units to 17.6 units per acre
is insignificant.
Mr. Kendall, in response to question regarding emergency vehicles,
assured the assembly that the site plans have been reviewed by the City Fire
Department and they found no difficulity, and in fact do encourage, the use of
loops in connection with parking and road systems as shown in said plans. Re-
garding the statistical figures from Walker and Lee, Mr. Kendall stated that
these were used because the study was performe'd in Southern California and, al-
though he conceded that all statistics are subject to question~ he feels they
will prove fairly accurate because the type of dwelling unit which will be
offered in this project will attract younder families without children 0rwith
pre-school children, and older families whose children have left home.
The Mayor asked if anyone else in favor wished to speak, and hearing
no response, offered the opposition an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. James Darrow, Holder & Bevins, 136 West Whiting Avenue, Fullerton,
Attorney for the Cerritos-Walnut Association, gave the recapitulation for the
opposition, stating that they hold with the findings of the City Planning
Commission who recommended denial of this project last August, and read in full
the findings from the City Plannimg Commission resolution. The Cerritos-Walnut
Association, according to Mr. Darrow, opposes this project not only as homeowners
73-41 ·
City Hall! Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 16; 1973; 1:30 P.M,
but as citizens of Anaheim because they feel it would not be a good develop-
ment for the area or for the City.
Mr. Darrow stated that in lying with density, there is no guarantee,
once the rezoning is final that only 552 units would be constructed on subject
property. Mr. Darrow further advised that it is the position of the Cerritos-
Walnut Association that the variance granted Leadership Housing Systems, is
not valid because it is a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by single-
family residents in the area and no hardship was demonstrated prior to obtain-
ing said variance.
Mr. Darrow referred to the fact that Mr. Bevins~ subsequent to the
original public hearing, had requested a rehearing, on the basis that the
homeowners had relied on the recommendation of the City Planning Commission,
and had perhaps assumed that the City Council would follow this recon%mendation.
Further he stated that the homeowners' association had notified the developer
in writing of their position that the zoning was not final and of their intent
to continue the opposition and do their utmost to have the zoning set aside.
Councilman Pebley noted, in reference to Mr. Darrow's statement that
the people had relied on the City Planning Commission recommendation, that it
would seem to him that both Mr. Bevins being the City Attorney for Buena Park,
and Mr. Darrow should be aware that the City Council acts independently and
does not always follow the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Darrow stated that he was cognizant of the fact that the City
Planning Commission is a recommending body, and advised that his point was that
the people incorrectly had relied on the City Planning Commission recommenda-
tion. He based further reason for reconsideration of the zoning action on the
fact that a review of past actions, both by the City Planning Commission and
the City Council, will indicate that there have been a total' of six votes
consistently against it. He urged that the City Council follow the recommen-
dation of the City Planning Coranission and deny Reclassification No. 72-73-10
and Variance No. 2426.
Mr. Dale Stanton, 1509 Harle Place, Chairman of the Cerritos-Walnut
Association, referred to the aerial maps, provided by the developer, and
pointed out that the area surrounding subject property is primarily single-
family homes except for the development south of Euclid, which is 27 units per
acre. He related that he had moved to this City 12 years ago because of good
government, good schools, low density and because he felt this was the proper
environment in which to raise children. He submitted that this move necessi-
tated commuting 30 miles per day to work, whereas he could have moved within
15 miles of where he worked and live in a high density area in a project similar
to that which is proposed.
One of the prime concerns of the Cerritos-Walnut Association is the
lack of a prescribed legal zoning code specifically for condominium use, ac-
cording to Mr. Stanton. He stated that from this zoning approval, a number of
requests for R-3 for condominiums will result, and the lack of criteria to
define such use will remain a problem. He advised that in his opinion the
variance granted Leadership Housing Systems is out of order and illegal in that
he was not granted such code waivers on his property.
Mr. Stanton reminded the Council that within two and one-half days
his group had obtained a petition of opposition containing 915 signatures plus
45 more too late for submission. He maintained that he could have had 2~000
names of voters within the prescribed area within a week's time.- Mr. Stanton
concluded that this project would not add anything beneficial to the community
and would not act as a buffer zone, and urged the Council to review every aspect
of the consequences should it proceed.
Mr. Martin Sklar, 1664 Carnelian Street~ stated that he wished to
appear in three capacities: as a resident citizen~ as a member of the Anaheim
Elementary School Board~ and as President of the Anaheim Elementary School
Board. He requested the name of the person who had supplied the information
regarding schooIs previously presented by Mr. Kendall.
73-42
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16~ 1973; 1:30 P.M.
On being informed that the information was received from Mr. Harold
R. Franzen, Mr. Sklar advised that Mr. Franzen is the Assistant Superintendent
of the Anaheim City Elementary School District. Mr. Sklar stated that the
Anaheim Elementary School Board was not aware that any information had been
requested regarding the impact of this project on the City school system and
this is one of the reasons for his presence this evening.
Mr. Sklar advised that the Palm Lane School could accommodate 27 to
30 children additionally. He reported that although they have seen a decline
in attendance at elementary school level over the last five to six years, they
believe this is leveling off and anticipate an increase by the end of this year.
He further advised that the school district at present is without bond money,
and under present circumstances would not be able to house approximately 275 of
the anticipated 552 school age children from this project.
Speaking as a resident and homeowner, Mr. Sklar stated he did not have
any comment to make against the design of this project, but based his objection
on the density and the apparent change in philosophy as to how land is to be used
in an area which has been established as primarily single-family residential.
Councilman Dutton pointed out that the City has undergone a great deal
of growth and that the school system has always expanded to meet the growing needs
of Anaheim's increasing population.
Mr. Ray Page, 2054 South Della Lane, stated that his concerns regarding
the proposed project lie in the area of effects on the environment and cited
as an example the loss of a large drainage area and resultant run-off problems
which might insue with development of subject property. He further stated that
he believes that this project will have a larger population of children than the
statistics relate.
It was his opinion that the developer must have an alternate plan and
if it conforms to the density figures suggested by the City Planning Commission
there would be no protest on his part. Mr. Page remarked that the property at
Walnut and Cerritos is enhanced by the excellent schools and services available
to it, as well as the quality of the adjacent homes, and stated that this property
in turn should be treated as a high quality piece of land by building a lower
density, and more expensive condominium project on this site.
Mr. Robert Messe, 1523 Bayless, came forward to point out two contra-
dictions in the presentation given by the developers~ i.e.~ they had originally
stated that there would be a total of ten percent guest parking accommodations,
which do not appear on the plan and further that he had originally been given
a estimated school age population figure as 276 whereas now this is up to 552
children. Further, he remarked that the developers had not discussed the crime
or traffic situations which are of great concern to himself and other property
owners in the area.
The Mayor asked if anyone else in opposition wished to address the
Council, and hearing no response, offered the proponent time for rebuttal.
Mr. Kendall stated that the most important point he could make was that
everyone concerned, including the representatives of the homeowners association
and the City Planning Commission, has said they would have no complaint if the
project were 12 units to the acre, whereas they are terrified if it is 17.6 units
to the acre. It is the firm belief of Leadership Housing Systems that the
difference in the impact on the con~nunity between the development of 12 units and
17.6 units is not substantial. Ne observed the apartment un{ts are customarily
built at greater densities than 17.6.
Regarding the remark made earlier by Mr. Darrow that this property
may be developed to still greater densities because the building permits have
not yet been issued, Mr. Kendall advised that one of the conditions of the zoning
approval is that the property be developed in conformance with the plans as sub-
mitted.
Mr. Kendall held that the variance granted on this development was
not a special privilege but given because plans of the project had complied with
73-43
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973; 1:30 P.Mo
the intent of the ordinance, however in developing the property there were
specific mechanical requirements of the ordinance which could not be met with-
out waiving some of the provisions. He stated that the average building set-
back of this project is greater than required and the code waiver for distance
between buildings applies to corners of buildings.
To clarify the. different statistics presented, Mr. Kendall pointed
out that the statistics presented this evening were drawn from a study per-
formed in Orange County, whereas the previous report was based on a State-
wide survey. The newer statistics were submitted because they considered these
would be more accurate since they were drawn from Orange County studies.
In reference to the crime element introduced by Mr. Messe, Mr. Kendall
stated that the type of individual living in the community is the largest con-
tributor to an atmosphere conducive to crime. In their experience with apart-
ment units, he reported these attract a transient, less community-involved
individual, and have a high turnover rate which is conducive to criminal act-
ivity. They expect that the project under discussion will not attract this
type of person.
In conclusion, Mr. Kendall urgently requested that the City Council
confirm their previous action approving the reclassification and granting
the variance.
Councilman Dutton asked if in fact Leadership Housing Systems did
have an alternative plan as suggested by Mr. Page..
Mr. Kendall advised that the costs of developing one plan for 40
acres of property would make alternative design prohibitive and that they do
not have such a plan.
Councilman Sneegas inquired as to whether the periphery drive and
four open spaces at the corners of subject development would become public
property or remain private property.
Mr. Kendall answered that these park areas and the drive would re-
main under the administration of the homeowners association and the maintenance
and taxes relating to them will be paid by that association. He advised that
neither the park areas nor the street would be dedicated as public property.
Councilman Sneegas asked whether there would be any degree of control
over the entry of strangers onto the development property, noting the contin-
uous alley systems usually found in multiple dwelling units contribute to a
higher crime rate.
Mr. Kendall answered that there will not be unrestricted entry as four
entrances to the property which will be provided in the nature of driveways,
unlike the usual street and alley system. He further commented that speed
bumps will be installed on the peripheral drive to mitigate against motorcycles
and speeding.
Mayor Dutton declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Thom stated that his opinion has not changed since the
original hearing, and that he feels this project is not good for the property
in question and further not in the best interest of that segment of the com-
munity presently living in the area. He observed that there has §een some
change in land use because of the increased densities on the nearby Disneyland
Hotel property but in his opinion the density of the proposed project plus the
traffic problems and "people" problems which it would create would not make it
desirable. He thereupon offered a resolution to rescind approval of Reclass-
ification No. 72-73-10 and Variance No. 2426.
Councilman Dutton stated that he could not vote affirmatively on this
resolution due to the fact that the subject property, acoording to the General
Plan, has for some time been designated as appropriate for R-2 or R-3 zoning
which is in fact an invitation to develop it in this manner. He again noted
that the R-2 or R-3 zoning could bring greater density to the area than that
which is proposed.
73-44
C~ty Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 16; 1973; 1:30; P.M.
Councilman Sneegas commented that the objective is to get the best
project for the area. In his opinion the project under discussion is a very
fine concept, and much more desirable than apartment units even at a density
of 12 units to the acre or four-plexes with a continuous street pattern.
Councilman Pebley advised that at the time the Council originally
approved the reclassification this was the reasoning behind their approval, and
further that the tenants will be home-owners and not renters. He noted that
recently on a parcel designated appropriate for R-3, located at Orangewood and
West Street on which a project similar to this with density of 15 units to the
acre was proposed, the homeowners in R-1 tracts abutting on three sides were
in favor of the project as they considered it more desirable than apartments or
rental units.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCII24EN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Thom
Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
Stephenson
The Mayor declared the resolution had failed to carry.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 60: In response to Councilman Dutton's query, Mr.
Geisler advised that the only action left before the Council regarding subject
project would be to act on Environmental Impact Report No. 60, previously dis-
cussed on December 19, 1972.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council received Environmental Impact Report No. 60 and Committee Analysis
thereof, and adopted same as the Statement of the Council. To this motion,
Councilman Thom voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom Seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:05 P.M.
City Clerk