1971/07/2771-439
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
AB SENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
COUNCILMEN: Dutton
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY MANAGER: Joseph B. Geisler
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona M. Fattens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Arthur Krebbs, of the First Congregational Church, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: The following Resolution of Congratulations
was unanimously adopted by the City Council:
"WHEREAS, EDWARD J. STRINGER, has devoted thirty-one
years of his lifetime to establishing the Anaheim Fire Department
as one of the leading organizations of its type in the Nation; and
WHEREAS, through his natural talents of leadership and
outstanding ability to keep abreast of contemporary methods of fire
prevention and fire suppression, Chief Stringer has been able to
cope with the weighty operational problems brought about by unpre-
cedented municipal growth; and
WHEREAS, Chief Stringer's professional bearing and keen
devotion to duty have been of constant inspiration to all personnel
of the Anaheim Fire Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council
does congratulate
FIRE CHIEF EDWARD J. STRINGER
upon the occasion of his retirement from active municipal service,
and extends to him its deepest gratitude for more than three decades
of service to the Anaheim Community.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that best wishes be extended
for continued good health and happiness to Eddie and Margaret during
their future years of retirement.
DATED this 27th day of July, 1971.
S/ JACK C, DUTTON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
S/ MARK A, STEPHENSON, MAYOR PRO TEM
S/ DENE M. DAOUST,
CITY CLERK, CITY OF ANAHEIM
S/ CALVIN L, PEBLEY, COUNCILMAN
S/ DON R, ROTH, COUNCILMAN
S/ W,J, (BELL) THOM, COUNCILMAn'
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held July 13, 1971,
were approved on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth.
MOTION CARRIED.
71-440
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
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 read-
ing of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading
of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the
amount of $293,835.93, in accordance with the 1971-72 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOP~NT PLAN NO. 93: To reconsider Area Development
Plan No. 93 and to review secondary circulation of proPerties located on
the south side of Broadway, between Euclid and Fann Streets.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-
112, reaffirmed its previous action and recommended disapproval of Area
Development Plan No. 93.
The Deputy City Clerk advised that Variance No. 2262 had been
scheduled to be heard in conjunction with Area Development Plan No. 93,
and suggested these two Agenda items could be considered simultaneously.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2262: Submitted by Paul Ackerman, proposing to
utilize an addition to an existing residence for a real estate office on
R-1 zoned property located on the south side of Broadway, west of Euclid
Street; and further described as 1718 West Broadway, with waivers of:
a. Permitted uses in the R-1 Zone.
b. Minimum required front yard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-113,
denied said variance.
Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property, the exist-
ing uses and zoning in the immediate area and advised that the City Plan-
ning Commission again recommended denial of Area Development Plan No. 93
(originally considered and denied in 1968) on the basis that commercial
use of residential structures and Area Development Plan No. 93 was prema-
ture; thus, said variance also was denied.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or his Agent was
present and wished to address the City Council.
Wallace W. Warren, 1705 Siva Avenue, Agent for the Applicant, ad-
vised that although the total area of the facility would be approximately
405-square feet, the proposed addition was only approximately 200-square
feet, a fact that had not been made clear at the time of the City Planning
Commission hearing. He added that the proposed addition was designed so
that the setback would be in conformance with zoning regulations, if and
when the property is zoned commercial.
Mr. Warren stated he had been advised that a 10-foot easement on
the west side of his property may be needed to provide, ingress and egress
for the other two properties involved in Area Development Plan No. 93; also,
he understood an additional 5-foot dedication may be required for street
widening. He advised he had no objection to either the easement or dedi-
cation, although the 10-foot easement would require his moving his garage
wall one foot.
In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Warren advised that one of
the other two residences involved in Area Development Plan No. 93 has a
tenant, and the owner resides in the third, and that both have indicated
they are in favor of the Master Plan. He added that it was his desire to
continue living in that part of his home not used for the real estate of-
fice.
71-441
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth noted that there has been criticism when spot zoning
of residences for commercial purposes has been approved, and that spot zoning
at times has prevented construction of high-rise buildings.
Councilman Stephenson expressed the opinion he could not see where
there was any hardship evident in Mr. Warren's situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address
the Council in favor of this application.
Ethel Cripe, 1718 West Broadway, tenant of one of the residences
within the area covered by proposed Area Development Plan No. 93, advised
that at the time she moved into her residence she was told a real estate
office probably would be opened on subject property. She further advised
that she had no objection to the proposal, and understood there also was no
objection from the resident next door and down one house, and also no objec-
tion from the residents on Farm Street; that these people felt such an enter-
prise would increase the value of their property, since they expect that area
eventually to be zoned commercial.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Coun-
cil in opposition.
Ingrid Gower, 412 South Falcon Street, two lots south of subject
property, objected to the proposal mainly because the area in queStion is
the only property neighborhood children pass on their way to Loara School
that is not cormnercial. She stated she had no objection to Weber Appliance,
which is east of her property, but she does not feel any more commercial pro-
perty is needed which would create additional traffic.
Mrs. Gower expressed the opinion that allowing the requested com-
mercial activity would mean homeowners would find it necessary to move to
better areas and rent their property to anyone they can, since such property
is not salable under those conditions unless it is zoned commercial, and that
these rentals very often result in drug problems in the area and undesirable
tenants, such as had happened on Euclid Street.
She further stated that she believed facilities for such a commer-
cial enterprise would be at a minimum since, for example, there are only two
parking spaces available on the Applicant's property, and most homes usually
have two cars parked on the premises without adding commercial parking. She
asked who would police the facility to assure regulations were complied with?
Mrs. Gower referred to an ambulance service on Euclid Street as an
£11ustration of how these properties are policed. She alleged this enterprise
had operated there illegally for two years before it was noticed by the au-
thorities and that the same operation previously had been located illegally
farther down Euclid Street.
Councilman Stephenson explained that an application for this ambu-
lance service had been scheduled on the City Council Agenda the previous
week; however, the Applicant had advised that the property owner had informed
him he desired to use the property himself and the Applicant was given 30
days to vacate the premises.
Mrs. Carolyn Raschick, 410 Falcon Street, whose property is adja-
cent to subject property to the south, advised she opposed this proposed use
as one of the older homeowners who had moved here from Santa Aha when "prog-
ress'' such as is now proposed took over the area where they were living,
and she did not want it to happen again. She stated she had not objected
to Weber Appliance, as a television shop, and had found them to be desirable
neighbors; however, shortly after the start of their operation her home had
been broken into twice and she believed having commercial property that is
not occupied nights made those areas more susceptible to such things. She
also objected to losing backyard and patio privacy as a result of neon signs,
etc. on commercial property.
71-442
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MI~S - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson invited the Applicant to again briefly ad-
dress the Council.
Replying to Mrs. Gower's concern over parking spaces, Mr. Warren ad-
vised that the 10-foot easement on the west side of his property would make
two extra spaces available, thus allowing for a total of at least four parking
spaces. He also stated that if progress is not allowed to take place in the
City of Anaheim as it grows, the City will regress; that he would not want
the application turned down under the pretense, as Mrs. Raschick intimated,
that it could create a criminal element.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address the
Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Geisler advised that the Anaheim General Plan recommends the
area covered by Area Development Plan No. 93 for low-medium residential use.
Councilman Thom stated he felt no significant change has taken place
in subject area to warrant a variance such as has been requested, although
he realized there were innumerable realtors having offices in old residential
structures.
Councilman Roth advised that at the present time his real estate
activity is located in a converted piece of property; however, he is trying
to encourage people coming into the downtown area to tear down some of the
old buildings through the free enterprise system and develop new commercial
buildings. He added that he did feel that some day the property on Euclid
Street and Broadway would be zoned commercial.
In reply to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Geisler advised that, although
there is no ordinance prohibiting a combination residential-commercial use,
there is no zone that permits it.
Councilman Pebley stated that he probably would not object to the
application if it were for a straight C-O use, su~ as an insurance-o~fice
c~real estate office, that could never go to a heavier Use.
Councilman Stephenson expressed the opinion that the proposed use
would be an encroachment on the R-1 Zone.
MOTION - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO, 93: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded
by Councilman Pebley, Area Development Plan No. 93 was disapproved. MOTION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-334: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 71R-334 for
adoption, denying Variance No. 2262.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE
NO. 2262.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and St~phenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-334 duly passed and
adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 658: Submitted by Trinity Lutheran
Church for clarification of the Planning Commission's intent in approving
Christian education facilities to determine whether it included a day school
for kindergarten through eighth grade, since it was their intent to establish
such a school for 120 students, on R-H-10,000 zoned property located at the
northeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Nohl Canyon Road; and further des-
cribed as 4101 East Nohl Ranch Road.
71-443
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Comission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-114,
clarified that the intent of Conditional Use Permit No. 658, approving a church
with Christian educational facilities included the establishment of a day school
on subject property and imposed the following conditions in connection there-
with:
1. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum
standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing,
Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Ana-
heim, prior to the con~nencement of the activity authorized under this resolu-
tion.
2. That the existing driveway on Church Haven Way shall be barri-
caded immediately to preclude church traffic from using Church Haven Way.
3. That the existing driveway approach apron and entrance-exit to
Church Haven Way shall be removed and replaced with standard curb and gutters.
4. That a 42-inch decorative masonry wall and/or dense landscaping
shall be provided along the entire frontage of Church Haven Way; plans for
said wall and/or landscaping shall be submitted to the Development Services
Department for approval.
5. That dense landscaping, including trees, shall be provided along
the easterly property line adjacent to the area proposed for recreation pur-
poses; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to the Development Services
Department for approval.
6. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, and 5, above mentioned, shall be com-
plied with within 180 days from date hereof or such further time as the Plan-
ning Commission and/or City Council may grant, provided however, that the com-
mencement of the school use shall not be dependent upon completion of these
conditions.
7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac-
cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, mar-
ked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, and 4, in addition
to the conditions set forth above.
8. That a maximum of 120 students shall be permitted in the Chris-
tian day school.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning CommiSsion was filed
by Ronald H. Bevins, Attorney, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Deputy City Clerk submitted correspondence from the County of
Orange offering no recommendations; also, letters of opposition from Robert
A. Salerno, H.C. Van Ysseldyk, and Ronald H. Bevins; also submitted was re-
port of the City Engineer, regarding Finding No. 5 of Planning Commission Re-
solution No. PC71-114.
Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted
the location of subject property, the existing uses and zoning in the imme-
diate area, and reviewed the findings of the City Planning Commission, both
at the time the original Conditional Use Permit No. 658 was granted in 1964,
and at the June 14, 1971 meeting, at which they determined a maximum number
of 120 students, including all grades, should be permitted.
He further noted that the Traffic Engineer had indicated it would
be appropriate to have only one point of ingress and egress to Nohl Ranch
Road, and thus the Planning Commission had recommended removal~of the exist-
ing Church Haven Way access to the Church parking lot, which entrance-exit
was almost immediately adjacent to the single-family homes fronting on the
south side of Church Haven Way.
The City Engineer referenced his report on pedestrian traffic con-
trol at the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Nohl Canyon Road, and advised
that it was his opinion the existing conditions did not justify the four-way
stop sign and crossing guard at that point, as was suggested by the City Plan-
ning Commission; that the Traffic Engineer had recommended painted crosswalks
and the erection of school warning signs.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or his Agent was
present.
71-444
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Willard L. Conradson, 420 Fernhtll Lane, Pastor of Trinity Lutheran
Church, stated he felt Nohl Ranch was a unique corm~unity and the fact that
there are currently two private schools, one high school and one grade school
and kindergarten, and the area lies within two City Governments, two post of-
fices, etc., and one school district, made it a natural area for a private
school; also, that the Nohl Ranch area is expected to continue to grow.
He advised that the master plan for their facility, which was ap-
proved by the City of Anaheim, showed 7,200-square feet of existing buildings
and an additional two-story classroom building. He contended that at the
price of land in that area his church would not have purchased the 4.4 acres
there if they had only intended to have a Church and Sunday School activity.
Reverend Conradson also expressed the opinion that since three of
the present Planning Commissioners were on the Commission at the time the
original conditional use permit was granted, it always had been their under-
standing a Christian day school was intended.
In reply to questioning by Councilman Roth, Reverend Conradson ad-
vised that on Sunday mornings his congregation usually consists of 250 to 300
for worship services, and 190 to 220 in Sunday School; that there also are
various weekday church activities.
He also stated that, in his opinion, the recommendation of bringing
in a new road off Nohl Ranch Road would "foul up" the master plan of the aes-
thetics of the lot, and such an entrance would necessarily be directly across
from the existing public school; that at the time the original application
was considered he was informed it was not good to have an entrance/exit off
Nohl Ranch Road.
He added that if removal of the driveway off Church Haven Way was
a condition for granting the application, they would agree to remove it.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address the
Council in favor of the application.
Marvin Bangs, Lay President of Trinity Lutheran Church Congregation,
stated he found it almost inconceivable that residents could object to an in-
stitution which existed prior to building and selling of homes adjacent to
it; that the only reason they could have for opposition would be personal,
and he objected to that as a violation of the rights of those who were there
first.
He stated that anyone wanting to know what their facility would look
like, what the activity would be, and how many people would be involved could
have found out by looking at the master plan that was filed with the City of
Anaheim in 1964; that that master plan is substantially the same as the one
filed recently and did include a two-story building.
Mr. Bangs asked that the City Planning Commission recommendation
be upheld, to allow him to send his children to the school of his choice.
Richard Brooks, 624 Briardale, Orange, Vice-President of the Church
Congregation, and an Architect, described the terrain and the surrounding
land uses and elevations, being of the opinion the architecture of their
buildings is con~atible with the site and blends well with the Nohl Ranch
ar ea.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the
Council in opposition.
71-445
..~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P,M.
Ronald H. Bevins, 136 Whiting, Fullerton, Attorney representing a
number of homeowners in the immediate area, stated that in his review of the
file he found nothing that would indicate a proposed day school, and those
persons building homes in the area after the church was built could not have
known such a school was intended.
He advised that area homeowners have substantial investments in
their houses and these were made with the understanding there would only be
a church and Sunday School operation on subject property; that the church
and proposed school are directly oriented toward the homes on Church Haven
Way.
Mr. Bevins contended the proposed day school would create traffic
hazards, in that the majority of the children attending the school would have
to be brought there in a car, most of them probably from some place other than
Anaheim.
He stated he had not been able to locate the proposed playground
area in his review of the plans.
Mr. Thompson advised the Applicant has indicated they intend to
use the area i~muedtately east and between the bank and church for playground
activities.
Reverend Conradson confirmed this intent.
Mr. Bevins and the City Council reviewed the plans.
Mr. Bevins stated that there were a number of people in the audience
today from the area of Church Haven Way who would like to address the Council
in opposition; however, since it would be impossible for the Council to hear
all of them, he asked those people to indicate their presence by a show of
hands.
Ivan Nash, 2891Wyngate Road, Orange, contended there is not enough
room on the site for a two-story building and there was no mention made earlier
that a Christian day school would be located there.
He expressed the belief conditions there are not favorable for such
an operation: the grounds are too small, existing buildings are not adequate,
roads are not adequate, and problems probably would arise regarding stop signs,
grade crossings, traffic signals, etc., thus placing an additional burden on
someone in the area.
Mr. Nash stated he would not have purchased his home in that area
nor put over $9,000.00 into landscaping his property if he had known of the
proposed school.
He added that he did not believe there had been enough planning on
the part of the church for them to recognize the problems confronting them
and, in his opinion, the proposed school was neither needed nor necessary,
since the already-existing two private schools and the public school under
construction are adequate to take care of people living in the area, and it
is not necessary to bring people in from outside the area to attend school.
Hendrik Van Ysseldyk, 4125 Church Haven Way, described the Nohl Ranch
area as a relaxing, pleasin§~ purely residential area, with a ranch-type atmos-
phere and no gas stations~ neon signs or commercial establishments. He stated
they were pleased with the church in the area when they purchased their home
because they felt there would only be Sunday and other church-related activi-
ties there; however, they had not anticipated a day school with 120 students.
He added that he has no objection to any private school but did not see a need
for the proposed school; if parents want a Christian education for their chil-
dren there is a Lutheran day school within 1% miles from Trinity Lutheran
School, and another about 2 miles away at Lincoln and Kraemer, with uncompleted
classrooms.
71-446
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Van Ysseldyk contended none of the plans of the church show a
Christian day school and he had heard only about a Sunday School activity;
now he understands they plan to have 2 two-story buildings and when a new
sanctuary is built some time in the future, the present one will be used
for educational purposes also. As a result, he stated, there will be a
parcel in the midst of RH-10,000 zoning that will be overdeveloped with
a church and educational facilities, with parking area to accommodate
102 cars.
Mr. Van Ysseldyk referred to the approximately 400 homes located
in Nohl Ranch, 30 of which he contended were members of Trinity Lutheran
Church, and thus there could only be 12 to 15 students to attend the proposed
school from the Nohl Ranch area, with the rest of the students being brought
in from as far away as Yorba Linda.
Councilman Roth noted that, since most students probably would at-
tend the proposed school from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., it would not interfere
with the quiet atmosphere Mr. Van Ysseldyk referred to as desirable for wor-
kers returning home in the evening.
Mr. Van Ysseldyk replied that besides regular school, there would
be before-school activities, recesses, lunch hour, and after-school play,
and this could disturb those home during the day. He adde~ that the public
school now under construction is not oriented toward the residences, as is
the case with the church facilities. He also stated that, since there will
be no bussing of students to the elementary public school it would be a case
of children walking to school, and thus all would be from the immediate area;
that there are sidewalks on only one side of the street, and some children
would have to cross streets three times to get to the public school and the
traffic caused by children being driven to the proposed school would inter-
fere with that walking traffic.
Robert Salerno, 4128 Church Haven Way,whose property is adjacent
to subject school, stated he had voiced most of his objections in a letter
he previously had submitted, but he would like to know what possibility there
might be of the church, four or five years from now, requesting permission to
increase the number of students; also, if half of the property now is in park-
ing and the other half will be used for buildings, where the children would
play?
He added that the noise of 120 children playing next door to his
home would disturb his family and the family next door, whose backyard also
is adjacent to the area.
The Council again reviewed the plans.
Stephen Derkum, 2850 Rustic Gate Way, Orange, advised that he was
speaking neither for nor against the proposed school but wished to present
results of a poll that had been requested by the Homeowners Association Board,
who had voted to remain neutral on the issue, on whether people were opposed
or in favor of the proposed zoning variance to allow an elementary school for
kindergarten through grade eight. He advised that this poll was taken in
seven of the eight recorded tracts in the community, the eighth one being
"New Marywood," which is situated some distance away near Marywood School,
and only about half of the development occupied.
He reported that out of a possible 342 homes, they received answers
from 221, or a little under 65%; those in opposition numbered 87, those in
~avor 76, and 5§ remained neutral.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson invited the Applicant to again address
the Council briefly in rebuttal.
Reverend Conradson advised that there were no plans at this time
for 2 two-story buildings, as was mentioned, and that the playground area
was shown in the original plans. He added that in inclement weather black-
top areas are used for playground activities at other schools, and this also
would be the case in their situation. Reverend Conradson stated that there
71-447
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUI~CIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
had been no complaints received the last two weeks of June when they had 140
children on the premises for Bible School.
Replying further to comments made in opposition, Reverend Conradson
advised that the church owns almost the full length of the property on one side
of Church Haven Way, and that the master plan includes area for 2 two-story
buildings,if desired. He added that the church also owned a high-cost home
near the church, and that the church has a total investment in their facili-
ties well over $300,000.00. He was of the opinion that the public elementary
school now under construction being built of the same material as their facili-
ties,indicates the church fits well into the area.
Reverend Conradson also advised that the St. Paul Lutheran Day School,
mentioned as being 1~ miles away, does not have kindergarten and, even if added,
it would be questionable whether they could also accommodate the numbers their
proposed school would.
With regard to children attending the public elementary school, he
advised he understood advanced students from other schools in the area would
be bussed in.
Referring to coments about noise created by their proposed school,
he stated their worship services often have been disrupted by area children
playing outside the church.
In reply to Council questioning, Reverend Conradson advised that the
140 Bible students previously mentioned had played outdoors; that there is only
1 two-story building shown in the master plan, although that building is not
necessary to accommodate the 120 students. He added that the existing facili-
ties contain 36-square feet of classroom per child, based on 120 students, as
compared to the required 20-square feet per person.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson invited a short rebuttal from the opposi-
tion.
Mr. Van Ysseldyk stated that he had understood there were two pro-
posed two-story buildings mentioned during the Planning Commission hearing.
He again asked how many children from Nohl Ranch are expected to be attending
this proposed school.
Reverend Conradson replied that 80% of their members have Orange ad-
dresses and 20% have Anaheim addresses, with about 30 members living in Nohl
Ranch. He added that, as far as he knew, the Nohl Ranch Sales Office was the
only strictly Nohl Ranch 6riented place in the whole.area.
Mr. Salerno acknowledged that for first year or two, until the pub-
lic elementary school is fully established, there will be students bussed in;
however, the concept of the school still was that area students would be walk-
ing to school.
It was determined sufficient evidence had been presented, and Mayor
Pro Tem Stephenson declared the hearing closed.
In reply to Councilman Pebley's query as to whether ~he City Plan-
ning Co~ission interpretation had been that this proposed school had been
intended at the time of tha original application in 1964, Mr. Thompson advised
the Planning Commission felt they intended to allow more than a Sunday School
activity.
Councilman Roth stated he believed it was the intent of the Planning
Commission to include a Christian day school when they originally granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 658. Referring to the comment about the Nohl Ranch
area being a quiet community, he advised that investigating the area in con-
nection with this issue, he was amazed at the amount of noise already present
from the Freeway and vehicles.
71-448
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Thom advised that the only hesitation he had about the
proposed school was its close proximity to another city and the fact that
80% of the congregation lived outside Anaheim, making any decision of the
Council one primarily affecting a use in Anaheim for people not living in
Anaheim.
Councilman Stephenson noted there are many Anaheim children from
that area presently attending the Orange Public Schools at this time.
At the suggestion of City Attorney Joseph Geisler, the plans and
the entire file were again reviewed by the Council and Mr. Bevins, and it was
detemmined that those plans filed in 1964 did clearly show classrooms and also
two-story classrooms, indicating a Christian day school was planned at the time
of the original application.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-335: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-335 for
adoption, approving the clarification of Conditional Use Permit No. 658, as
recorm~ended by the City Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions
contained in Resolution No. PC71-114.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AFFIRMING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 658 AND INTERPRETING THE TERMS THEREOF.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-335 duly passed and
adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1241: Submitted by Samuel L. Bryant,
to establish an animal care center for the temporary housing and care of lost
and distressed animals in indoor quarters, including training classes on the
care of animals, on M-1 zoned property located at the northwest corner of Lacy
Avenue and East Street; and further described as 1039-1041 Lacy Street.
The City Planning Cormnission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-105,
granted said conditional use permit.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Cormnission was filed
by C. Birk Lefler, Parks Properties, Inc., and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Deputy City Clerk advised 11 letters opposing said application
had been received from residents and businesses located on Hampshire, Lacy
and Vermont Avenues, and 3 letters supporting the application had been received
from the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Society of Marin
County, California.
Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted the
location of subject property, comprised of approximately~ 21,O00-square feet,
with an ll,000-square foot building, and advised that the property is surroun-
ded on three sides by a developed industrial subdivision, with the closest
residence north and east of the northeast corner of Vermont Avenue and East
Street, and agricultural property across East Street that is designated for
a future junior high school.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or his Agent was pre-
sent and wished to address the City Council.
Herbert Martin, 2042 Seven Seas Lane, Huntington Beach, Executive
Director of the California Branch of the Humane Society of the United States,
advised that prior to their application they had been assured by the Planning
Director that their proposed use would be allowed in the~M-1 Zone. He stated
71-449
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M
the purpose of the proposed Animal Care Center is to provide temporary housing
and care for lost, distressed, and owned, unwanted dogs, cats and other small
animals, including native wildlife, and noted the following services that would
be available: Emergency veterinary care, emergency vehicles that would be op-
erated through the City and surrounding areas for pick-up of sick and injured
animals, ambulance service for D~ts whose owners cannot get to a private vet-
erinarian, pet adoption service, lost and found service, pet information ser-
vice, humane officers to investigate cruelty complaints throughout the County
and help people with animal problems. He added the proposed facility also
would train humane officers, animal control officers, and animal technicians,
disseminate printed material on the care of pets, and conduct classes on horse,
dog and cat care, which classes may be conducted in parks or other places
than the proposed center.
Mr. Martin advised that three of the Humane Society of the United
States Regional Staff Field Men would have their offices in the facility, as
well as the administration staff for the center.
He stated that their offices work differently than those of the City
or County who must operate according to animal control ordinances.
Mr. Martin outlined the facilities and equipment that would be avail-
able in this two-year old, tilt-up type concrete construction building, as fol-
lows, and advised that the need for these was determined by surveys throughout
Orange County: 9,600-square feet of open shop area with 18-foot ceilings to
house a clinic area, consisting of 8 rooms, major and minor surgery rooms,
examination rooms, recovery rooms for cats and dogs, intensive care ward, and
isolation ward for cats and dogs, and having 67 stainless steel cages; a check-
in area to handle 120 unwanted animals, and having 43 stainless steel or fibre-
glass cages for dogs, 36 for cats, and 12 for other small animals; adoption
wards of three rooms, containing 20 cages for dogs, 26 for cats, and an aviary
and cages for other small animals, with 48 4x8 fibreglass runs, connected to
cleanout gutters running to a central sewer connection; one kitchen area for
the clinic and another for the other shelter part; euthanasia room with walk-
in cooler and holding cages; store room, work shop area; drive-in area for
unloading emergency vehicles inside; 1,500-square feet of office space upstairs
and 1,500-square feet downstairs; inside partitioning to separate different
wards; airflow systems to various wards, baffled to prevent the noise from
going outside, and air conditioning where needed.
He advised purchase of the building has been contracted for at a
cost of $96,000.00, with $30,000.00 down-payment, and financing has been ar-
ranged for the balance to be paid over the next 7 years. He added that com-
mitments also have been made to spend $45,000.00 for stainless steel and fibre-
glass cages, and there will be facilities at the outset to handle 327 to 350
animals, based on standards set up by the United States Department of Agricul-
ture and the Orange County Animal Regulation Department.
Mr. Martin advised that standard procedures have been set up to main-
tain the most strict sanitary conditions for handling refuse, removal, etc.,
inside the building. He further stated that their facilities will be open to
the public for search of pets, and thus they will be more or less forced to
maintain a very model animal facility.
In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Martin stated the noise from
barking dogs would not be heard outside the building. He also advised that
their services are financed throu§h memberships and contributions, and the
funds for bringing these specific services to Orange County was left their
organization in a will; that the proposed facility would be the first one
operated in California by the Humane Society of the United States.
Referring to a query on property taxes, Mr. Martin stated that since
theirs is a non-profit organization, they would not be paying property taxes;
however, it was his opinion the value of the services they would perform with-
out cost to the taxpayers would be $4,000.00 or $5,000.00 a year, as compared
to the approximately $2,400.00 in taxes that would be normally assessed. He
added that at present,animal control costs to the Orange County taxpayers is
71-450
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
close to one million dollars a year, at least half of which comes from the
General Funds. He contended their operation would complement the present
service.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address the
Council in favor of the application.
Tom Hartsook, 10113 Ho!burn Drive, Huntington Beach, animal cage bu-
sinessman, advised that Mr. Martin had requested that he investigate the struc-
ture in question to determine if he felt it would be suitable for their needs,
and in his opinion, he has seen few buildings as well suited for the proposed
animal care center, since all operations could be performed inside the building,
and nothing could offend neighbors.
In reply to Council questioning, he stated he did not think the bark-
ing of the dogs could be heard outside of the proposed animal care center. He
added that 10 years ago he had been requested to in~tall aages fm~ ~ogs on the
roof of the Stanford Research Medical Center at Palo Alto, and today there
are between 300 and 400 dogs up there, and nobody is aware of it because there
is an 8-foot wall around them and the sounds and odors are dissipated up in
the air. He stated that if the proposed facility is operated in the way that
research facility is, he could not see how anyone could object.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Coun-
cil in opposition.
C. Birk Lefler, 1680 Bedford Road, San Merino, President and owner
of Parks Properties, Inc., which owns property contiguous to the subject pro-
perty, along with other parcels in the area, stated he is strongly opposed to
the proposed operation in a "high class industrial area in the heart of Ana-
heim;'' that Anaheim does not need an animal shelter since there are a number
of humane societies presently operating in Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
and Anaheim is served by the Orange County Animal Shelter.
Referring to taxes, Mr. Lefler advised that taxes on 9 acres of land
he developed on Vermont and East Streets have risen from about $2,500.00 to
over $23,000.00 since 1963, and has a market value of over $800,000.00. Mr.
Lefler stated that, in his opinion, noise and odors from such an operation
could not be c~tai~ed, particularly in an industrial-typ~ building not con-~
structed for the purpose.
Douglas Thom, 1219 East Vermont Avenue, whose home is 70 yards from
subject property, advised his wife and daughter both are asthmatic, and since
their home is situated in the path of prevailing winds, he feared the odors
and animal hairs would affect his family. He advised he agreed there was a
need for such an operation as is proposed, but he objected to it being loca-
ted on subject property~
Howard Pendleton, 2232 East Ball Road, Vice-President and General
Manager of P.B.R. Company, adjacent to subject property, advised that they
feel they have a large stake in Anaheim, since the payroll for their approxi-
mately 180 employees is in excess of $1,200,000.00 per year, and taxes on
their 7 acres of property last year were $27,000.00.
He stated that his company objected to the proposed operation because
an animal care center located next to their business establishment could have
a detrimental effect when executives of large corporations from all over the
United ~tates visit their building, since they do not think the noise and odor
of the animals can be controlled.
In reply to Councilman Thom's question as to whether it was felt the
proposed facility would have an adverse effect on their employees, Mr. Pendle-
ton replied negatively, and advised they were only concerned about the appear-
ance factor. He added that he thought the Humane Society did a good job but
he did not think subject property was the proper location for the proposed fa-
cility.
71-451
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MLWUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P,M,
Ken Robinson, 2561 Lime Circle, Fountain Valley, advised he was
Superintendent of Construction on the building in question and, in his opin-
ion, it is not feasible to use the building for an animal care center, since
there is no way the building could be insulated for noise, there are only
6 vents in the ceiling for ventilation and the entire facility would need
to be air conditioned, the only plumbing facilities are in the offices, and
it would be a prohibitive cost to install plumbing throughout, the factory
area floor is flat and it would cost $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 to install
proper drainage.
The Council requested R. Robert H. Haight, Director of Veterinary
Public Health Division of Orange County and County Veterinarian, to give his
opinion on the issue.
Dr. Haight stated that if the Humane Society of the United States
can give the potential they assure they can in the proposed project, he would
like to see the money they would use donated to the Animal Shelter for use,
and for building on there.
Referring to costs of the Animal Shelter, Dr. Haight advised that
basically the auditors assign certain fees to pay for the facilities and
the services pretty well pay for themselves; however, in a situation such
as dead animal pick-up there is no way that could pay for itself.
Dr. Haight advised that at this time the law requires stray dogs
to be turned in to the Orange County Animal Shelter as a central location
where owners could locate them. He added that the work done on controlling
rabies by h~ office proves that they have not done too bad a job with the
funds available.
Councilman Roth expressed the opinion that having all strays turned
in to a central location, such as the Orange County Animal Shelter, would be
the best procedure.
Referring to stray cats turned in to the Animal Shelter, Dr. Haight
advised that no cats under six months old may be released without deposit
with the veterinarian a fee for alteration of the cat; that cats over six
months old cannot be purchased until they have been altered, although this
is not so if you are the owner of a cat that has been turned in to the Shel-
ter.
He added that the proposed facility could accept cat strays, but
not dog strays; that a private organization may be able to keep s~ray dogs
longer but he believed they had as much difficulty placing them in homes
as the existing Animal Shelter does.
Dr. Haight advised that 72 additional runs presently are being
built at the Animal Shelter, and his experience has been that dogs kept
out-of-doors at the Shelter are less susceptible to such things as kennel
cough.
Mr. Mmrdoch noted that Anaheim has adopted the County Animal Con-
trol Ordinance by reference, and one particular area of concern to him is
disposal of dead animals, since it requires that "The poundmaster shall dis-
pose of all animals whose ownership cannot be established." the suggested
that if subject application is approved, the Animal Control Ordinance may
require amending.
Maypr Pro Tem Stephenson invited Mr. Martin to again address the
Council briefly.
Mr. Martin assured Mr. Thom that nothing would emanate from the
proposed facility that would e~dauger the asthmatic condition of his family.
He stated that in driving through the general area he had noted more stray
cats and dogs than normally would be seen going in and out of their proposed
facilities because of the manner in which the animals would be transported
in and out.
71-452
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIB-OTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P,M,
Regarding the legal requirement that stray dogs must be disposed
of by the Poundmaster, Mr. Martin stated the majority of the dogs they would
handle would be privately owned,and those that were not would be injured and
need help, and the disposal of them could be determined after the animal was
treated; that a Humane Officer legally can impound any animal where cruelty
is involved, and in such cases the Orange County Animal Shelter would be asked
to house such animals until the case was disposed of.'
Mr. Martin stated that 350 or 400 cats are destroyed daily through
the three existing animal centers in Orange County, and this increases to 600
or 700 at this time of year. He added that the law requiring any cat placed
from an animal shelter to be altered is creating hardship and people are aban-
doning cats on the streets rather than turn them in to an animal shelter, be-
cause they know they will be killed at this shelter if someone will not pay
to have them altered; that efforts are being directed at getting this law
changed.
He stated that he has been on a State Committee to study the surplus
animal problem and propose appropriate legislation on the problem; that under
the Uniform Ordinance by which Anaheim is governed, an owner is not held re-
sponsible for his pet, and he can let his animals stay in the pound after be-
ing picked up and be destroyed, rather than to pay the fee to reclaim them.
He then is free to obtain another pet.
In reply to Councilman Roth's query on what plans they have for
handling surplus animals, Mr. Martin advised that a great many necessarily
would be destroyed, as is now done by the Animal Shelter; however, there are
certain humane policies and procedures subscribed to, to help both the animals
and the people.
Mr. Martin refuted Mr. Robinson's statement that ventilation and
sewage costs would be prohibitive, and advised that engineers have determined
one additional floor drain would be required in the clinic and an extra sewer
line, 5 skylights should be installed in the open area dog run, and this area
to be baffled. He added that none of these items is something they could not
handle financially.
Referring to the question of the need for such a facility, Mr. Martin
advised the Board of Directors of Humane Society of the United States has pas-
sed a resolution declaring Orange County a disaster area on animal control and
welfare, when compared with other California areas.
It was determined sufficient evidence had been presented, and Mayor
Pro Tem Stephenson declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO, 71R-336: Following Council discussion, where it was agreed
such an operation was desirable but should be in a different location, Coun-
cilman Thom offered Resolution No. 71R-336 for adoption, denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 1241.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1241.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILD~N: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: INAtton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared ResolutionNo. 71R-336 duly passed and
adopted.
RECESS; Councilman Roth moved for a 5-minute Recess. Coumctlman Stephenson se-
conded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:20 P.M~).
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order, all Council
members being present, with the exception of Councilman Dutton. (5:30 P.M.).
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 1243: Submitted by Peter and Audrey
Warnoff, to permit on-sale beer in an existing billiard parlor on C-1 zoned
property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Beach Boulevard; and
further described as 3015-3017, and 3019 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-116,
granted said conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Ana-
heim a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along
Ball Road for street widening purposes.
2. That street lighting facilities along Ball Road shall be installed
as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public Utili-
ties; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim
shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned
requirement.
3. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Ana-
heim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Ball Road, for tree planting purposes.
4. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent property.
5. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum
standards of ~t~e City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Pluming,
Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accord-
ance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Ex-
hibit Nos. 1 and 2, provided however, that the parking areas shall be landscaped
in accordance with the site development standards of the C-1 Zone, and further
provided that all signing shall conform to the Sign Ordinance.
7. That Conditio~ Nos.l, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, above mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to the commencement of ~he activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within
a period of 180 days from the date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such fur-
ther time as the Planning Cozmnission may grant.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Co~uission on conditions
imposed was filed by Peter and Audrey Warnoff, Applicants, and public hearing
scheduled this date.
Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property, the existing uses
and zoning in the immediate area, and advised that the Applicants were objecting
to the conditions of improvement. He stated that the Applicants do not contem-
plate any physical changes in connection with their request for permission to
sell bottled beer on the premises; however, it is standard procedure when a use
is either changed or intensified on a property to recommend improvements b:e made
to bring the property up to Code and the use into conformance. He advised that
the signing on the west wall has been removed and the wall painted; however, the
signing on the east wall still, is not in conformance.
Referring to the statement in the Applicants' letter of appeal that
street lighting assessments were paid when the building permit was granted, Mr.
Thompson advised that they have researched the files and can find no record of
these being paid, nor could the Applicants locate their records.
Councilman Roth noted the Applicants' note that an offer to plant trees
was made at the time of construction, but the Safety Department had turned it
down as creating a possible traffic hazard in connection with the nearby inter-
section.
Mr. Thompson explained that some on-site standards have changed since
this building was constructed in 1959; however, there may have been some unusual
circumstances connected with this property at that time to preclude the planting
of trees.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present
and wished to address the Council.
Peter Warnoff, 1309 Iris Street, advised he originally had purchased
this parcel of land because it was unrestricted and required no zoning applica-
tion and he was informed at that time that street lighting fees had been paid;
also, he had been willing to put in tree wells and plant trees at the time the
sidewalk was installed, but was told there should be no trees there.
The City Attorney advised that if the required street lighting fees
were not paid in 1959, they should be paid at this time; however, proof of prior
payment would be comsidered compliance with the condition.
71-454
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINITES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Warnoff suggested that since Mr. Asawa had a parking lot on
the property prior to construction of his building~ the street lighting fees
may have been paid by him. He added that he himself had not paid the fees
and would be willing to pay them at this time if no record of payment can
be found, and if the fees are set at the amount required in 1959 when the
building was constructed. He was assured that these fees have not changed
since 1959.
Mr. Murdoch advised that at the time this property was developed
the standard street was 100 feet wide and a 50-foot dedication was required;
however, since that time, the street width standard has been changed to 106
feet and thus the reason for the condition requiring an additional 3-foot de-
dication.
Mr. Warnoff advised that dedicating this additional 3 feet would
result in a loss of 4 parking spaces, and thus his property would have a sub-
standard parking lot in case he should ever make application for any other
changes. He asked for some sort of protection on parking requirements for
any future requests; however, he added that he would be willing to dedicate
this required 3 feet at any time the City actually did widen the street.
Mr. Murdoch advised that since the curb line is presently 42 feet,
according to the City Engineer, which is only 1 foot short of the new stand-
ard, the likelihood of widening that street for quite some time is remote,
and thus it may be possible to require dedication at the time of street wi-
dening.
Mr. Geisler advised that it is acceptable to require dedication at
this time with dedication to take effect at such time as the street is widened.
Referring to the condition that air-conditioning facilities be shiel-
ded from view, which the applicants had mentioned in their appeal letter, Coun-
cilman Roth stated that his inspection of the property had revealed that the
adjoining motel also had air-conditioning units projecting from the rear of
their building.
Mr. Thompson advised that this condition is a standard condition,
and if the units are not visible from the street they are not required to be
shielded; however, if the noise from the units exceeds the allowable 60 de-
cibels at the property line, covering is required.
Mr. Geisler advised that the sound decibel condition would apply,
regardless of zoning; therefore, that condition could be omitted.
By general Council consent, amd with approval of the City Manager
and City Attorney, deletion of Condition No. 4 was authorized.
Mr. M~rdoch suggested Condition No. 1 be reworded to add the fol-
lowing: "Such dedication to take effect at such time as the street is wi-
dened as a general widening project."
Mr. Warnoff stated he was still concerned about losing parking spa-
ces and added that he is willing to dedicate the 3 feet required, provided
his parking lot was granted a variance so that it would be considered legal
for any type of business compatible for C-1 Zoning.
Mr. Geisler advised that the parking lot now is legal for the pre-
sent business activity, but would not be legal for all C-1 uses, since each
business activity has different parking requirements.
Mr. M~rdoch suggested it might be possible to delete the dedication
at this time, since it is not presently needed.
Mr. Geisler advised such a procedure could set an undesirable pre-
cedent, since every conditional use permit application should require the
standard of dedication in use at that time. He suggested the condition could
be worded so that dedication could not be required for at least a period of
5 years, or some other specific time.
Mr. Warnoff stated if, after dedication was made, the City would
not guarantee his parkt~ lot would not be ruled substandard at any future
time, he would rather have subject application denied.
71-455
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971,. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Geisler advised that his present business then would be considered
a non-conforming use, and as such, could continue to operate until such time as
he desired to make a change or intensify the use.
On recon~nendation of Mr. Thompson, public hearing was continued to
August 10, 1971, 1:30 P.M., to allow time for additional study on possible
solutions, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Co~ncilman Thom. MOTION
CARRIED.
PARKING LIMIT REQUEST - FLAVETTE COR~PORATION: Request of Juanita Balch, Flavette
Corporation, for a two-hour limited parking zone during working hours, for the
parking area at 801 East Broadway was submitted, together with report of the
City Engineer recommending request be denied, and 2 vehicle spaces limited to
1 hour installed.
Mr. M~rdoch advised he understood Flavette Corporation was satisfied
with the recommendations of the City Engineer.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, request
for a 2-hour parking time limit was denied, and installation of 2 vehicle spa-
ces limited to 1-hour authorized, as recon~nended by the City Engineer. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1098 - R~.qUEST RE PARK AND RECREATION IN LIEU FEES: Re-
quest of Henry Reichert, Retchert & Sons, to address the Council regarding de-
velopment of Rio Vista Mobile Home Park (Conditional Use Permit No. 1098), un-
der the former park and recreation in lieu fees was submitted, together with
report of the City Engineer and report of the Development Services Department,
recommending denial in view of the fact that the City had approved the neces-
sary permits which would have permitted development of the property under the
old fee schedule, and in view of the failure of the Applicant to proceed due
to his lender's objections.
This request had been considered at the June 8, 1971 meeting and de-
nied; however, at that time the Applicant was not invited to address the Coun-
cil, and consequently had repeated his request.
The City Council invited Mr. Reichert to address the meeting.
Mr. Reichert advised that the applicable park and recreation in lieu
fees had been paid at the time work on their mobile home park was started; how-
ever, since they had been unable to begin construction of their building with-
in 60 days of issue of the permit, they had been notified by the Building De-
partment that an additional $50.00 per space would be required to meet the in-
creased in lieu fees, or approximately $9,200.00, which he contended would be
a burden to pay.
Referring to Mr. Reichert's original reqUest, wherein he also had
requested some amendments to conditions in Resolution No. 69R-322, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 1098, Mr. Geisler reminded him that a new applica-
tion must be filed before any amendments to the Resolution can be considered,
and that the only issue for discussion this date was the collection of old or
new park and recreation fees.
Mr. Reichert stated that start of construction on their building had
been delayed because of a drainage problem, solution for which was not satis-
factory to the lenders; subsequently, other property in the area was developed,
which further complicated the drainage situation. As a result, he added, the
drainage plan has not yet been approved by the City, although the park itself
is about two-thirds completed.
Councilman Stephenson stated it appeared the Applicant had received
all of the necessary permits in plenty of time for them to develop under the
old park and recreation in lieu fees; also, they were notified these fees were
due to be increased.
71-456
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Reichert stated he did not feel there was any hard and fast
rule involved, since request for an $80,000.00 bond for off-site improvements
and letters of easement descriptions for off-site improvements later had been
rescinded; that the drainage stucture they are installing actually is to ac-
commodate and open up 50 or 60 acres of property in the area that is of no
concern to them, since drainage for their mobile home-park could have been
provided by going in the opposite direction. He added that they also have
put in Jackson Street and other things which are of no use to the mobile home
park and have redesigned the grading and sewer system at great expense and
loss of time, although recovery of some of this money spent may be possible.
Councilman Thom asked how many other Applicants paid the fees under
the old schedule and had not gotten construction under way before the new fee
went into effect? He added it would be his opinion there would be only one
or two.
Councilman Roth expressed the opinion that there is no other piece
of property in Anaheim that has as many problems.
Councilman Thom stated he believed there were unforeseen hardships
connected with this project, and he believed the request should be granted.
He asked the City Engineer to present his views.
Mr. Maddox advised the property originally was landlocked and was
uphill from any access to a street, storm drains, etc., and thus the proposed
project was premature development, in his opinion; that the temporary solu-
tion of the drainage problem by a private drainage easement to Rio Vista Street
was objected to by the Parks Department, because there would not be. enough
cover over the Channel to get turf and it would create a raised-mound effect.
He added that other suggestions were turned down and changes occurred that
caused solutions to become illogical and resulted in necessary grading plan
changes, etc.
Mr. Maddox stated that although there are many problems in connec-
tion with this situation, he believed they now have the best solution for per-
manent drainage, sewer, etc.
Councilman Thom expressed the opinion Mr. Reichert's firm should not
be penalized for circumstances beyond their control.
Mr. Murdoch advised that in discussion with the City Attorney, it
was determined the Council could make their decision either way with reason;
however, it was felt there were unusual circumstances involved, and thus a
precedent would not be set that would create any later problems, if the re-
quest was granted. He added that it was felt the Applicant had benefited both
the City and the adjacent property owners in his efforts to solve the problems.
Mr. Reichert advised that the necessary changes in plans had cost
them approximately $20,000.00 in engineering expense.
Mr. Murdoch stated it seemed evident the developer had tried to keep
this project going but was unable to do so within the time limit because of
the conditions of the property and drainage.
In reply to Councilman Stephenson, Mr. Geisler'advised that granting
the request of the Applicant would not constitute a gift of public funds, since
the finding could be he had the vested right in view of the fact that he had
made payment of the park and recreation fees, under his original building per-
mit, and had diligently proceeded with construction of the facilities; under
State law, the permit for the mobile home park itself would not expire, although
the permit on buildings to be constructed thereinwould. He added that the Ap-
plicant, however, would have to get a new building permit to replace the one
that expired and may need more permits if he wishes to construct other buil-
dings.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, it was
the finding of the City Council that the Applicant meets the requirements
71-457
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
as specified by the Council's previously-adopted policy in connection with the
park and recreation fees, and the Applicant be granted permission to develop
under the old park and recreation in-lieu fees previously paid under the ex-
pired building permit. MOTION CARRIED.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONE CHANGE NO ZC6743; Assistant Director of Development Services
Ronald Thomson reported on the request pending before the Orange County Plan-
ning Commission for change of Zone from R-I, Single-Family Residence District,
to C-I, Local Business District, for property located at the northwest corner
of Brookhurst Street and Woodley Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held July 26, 1971,
by Motion recommended the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to con-
sider Residential-Professional or Commercial-Professional Zoning for subject
property, in order that the least conflict to the single-family tract in which
subject property was located would result, than a more intense commercial use
as proposed; and that any waivers requested for the location of the parking
area not be granted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, recom-
mendations of the City Planning Commission were sustained and ordered forwar-
ded to the Orange County Planning Commission for their consideration. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers. (5:35 P.M.).
PUBLIC IMPROVEI~NT PROJECTS - AWARD OF CONTRACTS: Councilman Roth offered Reso-
lutions Nos. 71R-337 and 71R-338 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-337 - WORK ORDER NO. 1227: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO
THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES,
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER,
FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE
THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE SUNKIST STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT FROM
HOWELL AVENUE TO BALL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1227.
(Farmac Pipeline, Inc. - $34,447.25)
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-338 - WORK ORDER NO, 1231: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO
THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES,
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER,
FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE
THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE LA PALMAAVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT FROM
APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF TO APPROXIMATELY 2,950 FEET EAST OF IMPERIAL
HIGHWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1231. (Silveri & Ruiz Con-
struction Company - $19,730.80)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COb-NC ILMEN:
Roth, Thom and Stephenson
None
Pebley
Dutton
The Moyor Pro Tem declared Resolutions Nos. 71R-337 and 71R-338 duly
passed and adoptad.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-339 - AWARD OF CONI~RACT - LEGAL ADVERTISING INSIDE THE CITY
LIMITS; Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 71R-339 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 WHOSE BID
BEST RESPONDS IN QUALITY, FITNESS AND CAPACITY, FOR ALL LEGAL ADVERTISING
REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, PRINTED
AND PUBLISHED WITHIN THE CITY. (Anaheim Bulletin - $3.40 per column inch for
first insertion; $2.50 per column inch for subsequent insertions.)
71-458
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Thom and Stephenson
None
Pebley
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-339 duly passed
and adopted.
LEGAL ADVERTISING - OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS: The Deputy City Clerk advised no
bids had been received for Legal Advertising outside the City Limits. On
the recommendations of the City Attorney and City Manager, the Council de-
termined no readvertisement would be made at this time.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-340 - WORK ORDER NO. 1236: Councilman Thom offered Resolution
No. 71R-340 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE LA PALMAAVENUE SEWER IM-
PROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1236. APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPEGIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CON-
STRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - August 19, 1971, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN: Roth, Thom and Stephenson
COUNCILMEN: None
COUNCILMEN: Pebley
COUNCILMEN: Dutton
adopted.
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-340 duly passed and
Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chambers. (5:40 P.M.).
RESOLUTION NO. ?1R-341 - WORK 0RDER NO. 576; Upon receipt of certification from
the Director of Public Works, Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 71R-341
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
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 AlqD ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COM-
PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE CHAPARRAL PARK, CON-
CRETE MASONRY WALL IMPROVEMENT, 1760 WEST BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 576. (Falcon Fence and Masonry Company),
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCIL~N:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-341 duly passed
and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO, 71R-342 - ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO, 71-1~; Upon report and recommen-
dation of the City Engineer, .Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 71R-342
for adoption, approving Encroachment Permit No. 71-1E, to construct a swim-
ming pool, concrete decking, and related facilities which will encroach into
71-459
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO~R~CIL M/_NUTES - July 27, 1971, 1;30 P,M,
a portion of existing public utility easement at 1541 Minerva Avenue.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACH~NT PERMIT WITH FRANCIS.L. MDYLE AND JANE I.
MOYLE. (Encroachment Permit No. 71-1E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-342 duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-343 - ENCROACHME~NT PERMIT, ABANDONMENT NO. 70-13A: Upon report
and recomendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Roth offered Resolution
No. 71R-343 for adoption, approving an Encroachment Permit to use a portion
of the existing roadway located at the west side of Euclid Way, 217+ feet
north of Lincoln Avenue, for parking and landscaping. -
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH EDWIN E. HEACOCK AND RUTH B.
HEACOCK. (Abandonment No. 70-13A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-343 duly passed and
adopted.
IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1098- Irrevocable
offer of dedication of a one-foot strip along the west side of Park Vista
Street, executed by Joseph D. Huarte, in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 1098, was submitted and approved as to form and recordation thereof
authorized, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION
CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - SPOTLIGHT: The City Manager reported on informal bids re-
ceived for the purchase of a Spotlight for the Convention Center, as follows,
and recomended acceptance of the low bid:
VENDOR
West Coast Lighting and Trade Supply, Santa Monica
Oleson Co, any, Hollywood ......
Budd Theatre Supply, Culver City
National Theatre Supply, Los Angeles .....
Pembrex Theatre Supply, Los Angeles
TOTAL AI~, INCLUDING
TAX AND FREIGHT
$2,6i2.25
2,692.20
2,722.65
2,945.25
3,181.50
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low
bid of West Coast Lighting and Trade Supply was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $2,612.25, including tax and freight. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-344 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAIl,fiNANCE CONTRACT;
feted Resolution No. 71R-344 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Councilman Thom of-
71-460
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING THE LOWEST
AND BEST OFFER TO FURNISH ALL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAIN-
TENANCE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BY THE E.D. JOHNSON & COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SAID COMPANY. ($39,213.00 per year for
5 years. )
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-344 duly passed and
adopted.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied, as recommended by the
City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. Claim submitted by Reverend James C. Dixon, for purported per-
sonal injury damages sustained on or about April 14, 1971, as result of a fall
at Claudina Street entrance of City Hall.
b. Claim submitted by Dean Aschenbrenner, for purported personal
property loss sustained on or about June 28, 1971, when park attendant at
Boysen Park, operating a lawn mower, ran over claimant's glasses.
c. Claim submitted by Chief Special Agent J. Monk, on behalf of
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph, for purported personal property damages sus-
tained on or about June 14, 1971, when City equipment severed their buried
cable.
MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - June 17,
1971.
b. Before the Public Utilities Cormuission - Application of Amer-
ford International Gorporation, a corporation, for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity as an air freight forwarder of general commodities
between points in the State of California.
c. Park and Recreation Con~nission of the City of Buena Park, Cali-
fornia - Minute Action - Requesting prompt acquisition of the Los Coyotes
Park Site.
d. City of Buena Park - Resolution No. 4387 - Urging action by
the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to abolish the Airport Land
Use Commission for Orange County.
~DTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 2951: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 2951 for adop-
tion as an Urgency Ordinance: the amendment to Section 14.32.190 (77) was
read in full by the Deputy City Clerk.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32,
SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PARKING.
(No Parking At Any Time - State College Boulevard on the east side,
from Almont Avenue to 560 feet north of Almont Avenue.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIOMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
AB SENT: C Ob-NC ILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 2951 duly passed and
adopted.
71-461
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO~ClL MINUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P.M,
ORDINANCE NO. 2952; Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 2952 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-1 - C-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth,Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 2952 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2953: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 2953 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF 1"dE ANAHEIM~JNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-44 - C-O)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 2953 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 2954: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 2954 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLT 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION
14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PARKING. (No Parking At
Any Time - Winston Road, both sides, from West Street to its easterly terminus,
~pproximately 400 feet east of West Street.)
VERMONT AVENUE AND OLIVE STRRRT RA?%~OAD CROSSING: Report of the City Engineer on
the Vermont Avenue and Olive Street Railroad Crossing was submitted to the
Council for their information.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: Mr. Fmrdoch noted that action is scheduled to be
taken on support of the Briggs or Cory Bill, re the Harbor District, and also
on LAFCO City Representatives at their meeting to be held July 28, 1971. He
advised that the Cory Bill would incorporate administration of beaches and
parks with harbors, and also provide for an Advisory Body where there would
be mandatory city representation; and the original Briggs Bill would place
before the voters of the Harbor District the question of whether or not to
abandon the Harbor District. He added, however, that he understood the Briggs
Bill was amended to remove all reference to the Harbor District.
Following Council discussion, Councilman Stephenson moved that the
Anaheim City Council go on record as supporting the Cory Bill. Councilman
Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Inasmuch as Mayor Dutton, the official representative, would not be
able to attend the meeting, by general Council consent Councilman Thom was ap-
pointed to represent the City Gouncil at this meeting on July 28, 1971.
Regarding the issue of LAFCO Commission membership, Councilman Thom
stated he understood there would be discussion on this issue but no action
taken. He added that he did not wish to parttcipa~e in this discussion with-
out a position.being taken ~y this Council.
MOTION: Following Council discussion, Councilman Roth moved that if it is de-
termined that another vote is necessary on the issue of LAFCOmembership, it
be done in accordance with the existing By Laws and Procedures of the League
of California Cities. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
71-462
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCI~ ~NUTES - July 27, 1971, 1:30 P,M.
DISCUSSION - BUDGET PRIORITIES: At the request of the City Manager, August 17,
1971, 10:00 A.M. was tentatively set to discuss 1971-72 Budget priorities.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - TOURNAMENT OF ROSES ACCOUNT; The City Manager submitted a
request from the Anaheim Chamber of Co~nerce that the unused portion in the
City's last Chamber Promotional Account for 1970-71, in the amount of
$2,160.19 be applied toward the Tournament of Roses loan from the City. He
added that the Ch~,her of Con~nerce had forwarded with their request a check
in the amount of $1,618.45 from their Tournament of Roses Account, as payment
toward their loan.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the City Attorney had determined such a
transaction would be a legitimate expenditure in accordance with the promo-
tional contract between the City of Anaheim and Chamber of Commerce, since
the Tournament of Roses is a promotional activity.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, said re-
quest was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO, 71R-345 - IDENTI-KITS: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution
No. 71R-345 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE IDENTI-KIT COMPANY, A MEMBER OF
THE SMITH AND WESSON LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUP, A DIVISION OF BANGOR PUNTA
OPERATIONS, INC., LESSOR. (For Use by Police Department)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COb-NC ILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
None
Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-345 duly passed and
adopted.
HELICOPTER MAINTENANCE CONTRACT: Mr. l~rdoch advised that the Helicopter Mainten-
ance Contract with Tallmantz Aviation, Inc. was due to be renewed.
Following discussion, by general Council consent, the subject of
the Helicopter Maintenance Contract was held over for approximately two weeks
for further investigation and report.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Attorney called attention to
Finding No. 5 of the City Planning Comnission, in connection with Conditional
Use Permit No. 658, wherein it was recommended the City Council consider pro-
viding a four-way stop sign and a crossing guard at the intersection of Nohl
Ranch and Nohl Canyon Roads, and advised that, in his opinion, this recommen-
dation regarding safety matters is in excess of the Jurisdiction of the City
Planning Co~nission, and thus the City Council could, if it so desired, sug-
gest to the City Planning Commission that they exercise more care tn making
reconvnendations to the Council.
He added that the City Planning Con,mission is & very limited body,
which makes reconm~ndations to the City Council in connectionwith planning
and zoning matters, although the Council can request reco~nendations on other
items.
Replying to Councilman Thom's statement that the City Planning Com-
mission consider traffic and safety along with zoning applications, Mr. Geis-
ler advised the Planning Commission could recommend against a zoning because
they felt it would create a traffic hazard, etc.; however, it was not their
duty to recommend solutions to traffic problems.
71-463
City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUp. IL MINUTES - July ~7., 1.971, 1;30 P,M,
Following Council discussion, no action was taken by the Council.
APPO~Iq~I~I~T - DEPDTy CI~ CLERK; City Clerk's appointment of Charline Priest as
Deputy City Clerk, serving without pay, to act in the absence of the City
Clerk and Deputy City Clerk Aloha M. Farrens, was ratified on motion by Coun-
cilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED.
PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE - COUNqlLMAN THOM: Councilman Thomrequested that
his permission to leave the State as of August 31, 1971, granted by the City
Council on July 20, 1971, be changed to commence the date of July 31, 1971.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
Councilman Thom was granted permission to leave the State for ninety days,
commencing July 31, 1971. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURlql~NT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the mo-
tion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED: 6:10 P.M.
Signed
Deputy City Clerk