1972/02/0872-70
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M.R. Ringer
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph Pease
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Alan G. Orsborn
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Dutton called the meeting of order.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the Assembly in the Pledge of Al-
legiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held January 18
and 25, 1972, were approved on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Coun-
cilman Stephenson.
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 Stephenson seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the
amount of $546,529.26, in accordance with the 1971 -72 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE NO. 2320: Submitted by Standard Oil Company of Califor-
nia, to upgrade and modify an existing service station in addition to provid-
ing new signing. C -R property located at the southwest corner of Katella
Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, with waiver of:
a. Maximum number of free standing signs.
b. Minimum distance between free standing signs.
c. Location of free standing signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71 -248,
denied said variance.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed
by R.B. Couch, Applicant's representative, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject
property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, briefed the evi-
dence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission, and read
findings of the Planning Commission denoting the basis for their denial.
He displayed Exhibit 4, containing two photographs of the proposed
type of sign and advised that in their appeal letter the Applicant had changed
a portion of their request, reducing the free standing sign on the corner of
Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard to a height of 19 feet, and 47- square foot
area.
In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Roberts advised that the free-
standing corner sign now proposed would be less than 50% of the square- footage
of sign area of the existing sign.
He further advised that the lighter boxes placed on canopy pillars
are considered free standing signs, because they are not on the wall of the
building and do have an emblem on them; that if there was no emblem they would
be classified as lights.
72 -71
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant's Agent wished to address
the Council.
R.B. Couch, 16817 Redwood Street, Fountain Valley, Property Rep-
resentative, Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, pre-
sented for information photographs showing a service station with signing
such as is proposed, and artist's renderings of stations in Arcadia and
Lakewood constructed in the manner they intend for the new station at sub-
ject location.
In reply to Councilman Thom, Mr. Couch advised the proposed lighter
boxes have not and will not be used for posting of price signs; they were
designed at the request of dealers and station managers to enable them to
check under the hood of an automobile without using a flashlight and still
not shine in the eyes of customers; the logo was added to break the expanse
of white. He added that price signs will be posted on the corner pole, as
authorized by ordinance, one facing toward Harbor Boulevard and the other
toward Katella Avenue.
Councilman Roth, noting that Standard Service Stations at Manches-
ter and Broadway, and also at Harbor and Freedman Way have been refurbished
with the lighting and signing as proposed, reported that the manager of one
of these stations had stated he was pleased with the new lighting.
Mr. Couch advised that Standard Oil Company is presently under-
going a complete change in station appearance; that although the colors will
remain red, white and blue, they are using less of the red color and more
of the white and earthen tones.
Mr. Roberts advised that the two Standard Stations that have re-
done their lighting and signing have done so without obtaining a variance,
and thus are illegal.
City Attorney Joseph Geisler stated that those two stations will
have to apply for variances in order to retain the signs and lighting.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone else wished to address the Council;
there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Couch advised that, subsequent to their letter of appeal,
wherein they changed their sign height request to 19 feet, it was discovered
an additional 3 feet would be needed in order to meet the ordinance require-
ment for distance from the ground for the price sign; thus, their request
now is for a height of 22 feet for the free standing sign on the corner.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -45: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -45
for adoption, granting Variance No. 2320,subject to the following Interde-
partmental Committee recommendations as amended to reflect the maximum sign
height of 22 feet:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Harbor Boulevard and Katella
Avenue for street lighting purposes.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 15c per front foot along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Ave-
nue for tree planting purposes.
3. That the sidewalks and driveways shall be installed at ultimate
locations along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue as required by the City
Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the office of the City Engineer.
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 subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolu-
tion, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a
period of 180 days from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further
time as the City Council may grant.
72 -72
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
7. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, and 5, above mentioned,shall be com-
plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
8. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac-
cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar-
ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, "provided, however, the free standing sign
located at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue shall not exceed 22 -feet in
height, as stipulated to by the Petitioner."
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE
NO. 2320.
Mr.
low this type
ingly without
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -45
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Couch what the
Oil Company with regard to stations that go out of
Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
duly passed and adopted.
position was of Standard
business.
Mr. Couch advised that where a station is owned by Standard Oil
Company it is immediately flat lotted; where a location is leased,but the
station built by Standard Oil Company, they attempt to negotiate with the
property owners so the station can be torn down and in the meantime the sign-
ing is removed and the station painted a white, dull color to neutralize it;
where a station is built by the owner of the property and leased by Standard
Oil Company, the signs are removed and the coloring neutralized.
Mr. Murdoch asked if the Council would approve similar signing at
other service stations, in which case a draft of a change in the ordinance to
reflect this would be proposed for Council action.
Councilmen Thom and Pebley indicated that although this signing is
desirable at this location, it may not be in others.
Roberts suggested that, if the Sign Ordinance is changed to al-
of signing, other older stations may change their signs accord
providing the quality proposed in this application.
He added that the Zoning Enforcement Officer has been attempting for
several months to get compliance from a couple of Texaco Stations that are ad-
vertising stamps and gas war prices, and such things on their signs.
PUBLIC HEARING HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Application submitted by Mark Herman, re-
questing permission to move a dwelling from 9222 Bloomfield Street, Cypress,
to 942 Salem Street, Anaheim, and also that the Park and Recreation in -lieu
fee be waived in this instance, was reviwed by the City Council, together
with report of the Development Services Department recommending permit be ap-
proved and the Park and Recreation fee be waived, as the former home was de-
molished by fire.
Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant was present and satisfied with
the recommendations of the Development Services Department.
H.A. Chamberlain, 7200 Melrose Street, Buena Park, Agent for the Ap-
plicant, stated they were satisfied with the recommendations.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council.
Leona Wheeler, 950 South Salem Street, Anaheim, stated that her home
is adjacent to the lot in question and the dwelling already has been moved and
placed at a spot conforming to regulations, 5 feet from the lot line; however,
the dwelling is situated such that it is parallel to the windows of her bedroom,
making it necessary for her to keep the drapes closed on that side of the house
at all times. She asked that the dwelling be moved to correct the situation,
or possibly a higher fence erected.
72-73
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.:1.
Mrs. Wheeler added that the original dwelling on that lot was
situated so that the corners of the two dwelling were parallel, and LLus
there was no problem.
Councilman Pebley, noting that the dwelling has not been plac
on a foundation, suggested a condition of approval could be that the house
be located to avoid this situation.
The City Attorney advised that as long as the placement of the
dwelling conforms with the Municipal Code, such a condition could not be
enforced; that the only thing to be considered this date is whether the.
dwelling is of an adequate nature to be moved and if the standards of the
dwelling are such that it would not be a deterrent to the general charac-
ter of the neighborhood.
Mr. Chamberlain advised that the dwelling in question was movod
onto the property but not placed on a foundation pending action on the
house moving permit application,because the dwelling had to be moved from
its original location and it would have cost several hundred dollars more
to have moved it to the housemovers storage lot in Santa Ana, and then back
to the Salem Street location; that the housemovers had agreed to move the
structure if the permit was not approved.
He added that the dwelling in question is not of slab construc-
tion, and thus will be twelve inches higher than other homes in the area;
that the plot plan shows it situated five feet from the lot line, as re-
quired by Code.
Mr. Chamberlain noted that the gas connection for the lot in
question, which also serves Mrs. Wheeler's home, is located about 8 feet
from the property line, and thus it may be advisable to .move the dwelling
back on the lot to clear this line.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone else wished to address the Council;
there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Roth offered a Resolution approving the house mov-
ing permit and waiving the Park and Recreation fees, as recommended by the
Development Services Department.
Councilman Pebley stated he would like a decision continued for
one week to allow further investigation to see if the dwelling could be
relocated to eliminate the problems.
Councilman Roth withdrew his foregoing offer of Resolution.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, de-
cision on the house moving permit was continued to February 15, 1972, 1:30
P.M., for further study. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Mrs. Frances B. Gonzales, on behalf
of Sociedad Progresista Mexicana No. 24, for permit to conduct public
dance, February 13, 1972, at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue,
from 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., was submitted and granted, subject to pro-
visions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and that 2 officers
and 1 matron be hired to police the dance, as recommended by the Chief of
Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71- 72 -20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277 (TENTATIVE TRACT
NOS. 7657, 7658 AND 7659) REHEARING REQUEST: Request of Frances J. Guy, Jr.,
on behalf of The Citizens to Protect the Children of the Flower Tracts
was submitted to present petitions from the citizens of Buena Park, re-
questing reconsideration of Reclassification No. 71 -72 -20 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 1277, involving Tentative Tracts Nos. 7657, 7658 and 7659,
as approved at the City Council meeting of January 11, 1972.
72 -74
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Dutton invited Mr. Guy to address the Council.
Mr. Guy presented petitions purportedly containing 771 adult sig-
natures from 448 homes in the immediate area of the proposed development,
requesting that the decision of the City Council to approve this development
be reconsidered. He also presented a map showing the homes in the area from
which signatures on the petitions were obtained.
Mr. Guy advised that the vast
are opposed to the proposed development
of the houses themselves and hazards to
new park, which would be created by the
majority of the people in the area
because of the extremely high density
children walking to school and the
resulting increased traffic.
He noted that there are 179 units in the proposed townhouse develop-
ment, whereas, in the same amount of land to the west there are 93 homes, and
again within the same amount of land to the south there are 73 homes.
He asked that the Council reconsider its approval of the proposed
development.
Councilman Dutton assured Mr. Guy that the Council had given con-
sideration to the existing uses in the area, and had obtained reports from
the Traffic Engineer and other departments involved before they had made their
final decision. He stated that any time a higher density is proposed for an
area there are objections from single family residents, which he felt were
psychological in nature; however, Anaheim has a diversification of density
throughout the City, and it was the opinion of the Council that this location
was ideally suited for such a development because it was bounded on the north
by the offramp of the Freeway, on the east by light industrial zoning, on the
south by the Park, and a 90 -foot street on the west.
Councilman Dutton stated that, to his knowledge, the City Council
never has purposely worked a hardship on any area, whether it is Anaheim or
another city.
Mr. Guy stated the residents were not opposed to development of the
property but desired to have it developed for homes and not townhouses.
He cited a recent newspaper article reporting the Supreme Court's
decision that the people in neighboring cities must be informed of a proposed
development, and stated that the area residents would have attended Anaheim's
public hearing if they had been informed; that the only knowledge they had
was from a December 29, 1971, Los Angeles Times article.
Councilman Dutton advised that notice of the public hearing was ad-
vertised and the residents within 300 feet of the proposed development were
notified, in accordance with Anaheim policy, and that the Mayor, Planning
Director, and approximately 10 residents from Buena Park had attended the
public hearing.
He further advised that the newspaper article referenced by Mr.
Guy had stated that notifying residents within 300 feet may not be enough;
however, he added, there is no existing law that requires people within 300
feet to be notified.
City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised that there is no provision
in the Anaheim Municipal Code that would allow a rehearing in this case, un-
less the Council was misled by the presentation of the Developer, or some-
thing similar in connection with the public hearing; the law states that only
if the area residents had no knowledge of the proposed development and were
therefore damaged by failure to be notified, could the Council's decision be
upset.
Mr. Guy contended the area residents were notified by a poster placed
on the property in December, when it was raining, which washed off the printing,
and an individual had to cross a 3 -foot wide ditch filled with water to read it.
He also contended the Developer had described his proposal to Buena
Park residents as being 45- units, when he was securing signatures of approval
for his petition.
72 -75
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Dutton again explained that the hearing could not be
reopened and thus, by general Council consent, no further action was taken.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -46 DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution
No. 72R -46 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Calprop Corporation; James W.Russell;
Southern California Gas Company; Jack E. Riley; Thomas Masonry, Inc.; Peter
Warno f f
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -46 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 Stephenson:
a. Claim filed by Katherine C. Bliss, Hafer, Sills Wood, At-
torneys at Law, for purported personal injuries suffered as result of fall-
ing at the Convention Center, on or about October 23, 1971.
b. Claim filed by John Gervais, for purported personal property
damages sustained as result of his car being struck in rear by Anaheim Po-
lice Department vehicle while stopped at intersection, on or about January
14, 1972.
c. Claim filed by Susan M. Worth, for purported personal property
damages sustained as result of collision with a City Vehicle, on or about
December 27, 1971.
d. Claim filed by Edward Hernandez, Gilbert Tarr, Attorneys
at Law, for purported personal injury damages sustained as result of pur-
ported assault and use of excessive force by Anaheim Police Officers, on
or about October 31, 1971.
e. Claim filed by Glenn Wilson Periman, Konrad K. Larson, At-
torneys at Law, for purported personal injuries and property damages sus-
tained as result of collision with motorcycle driven by Anaheim Police Of-
ficer, on or about December 6, 1971.
MOTION CARRIED.
CROSSING PROTECTION FUND ALLOCATION REQUESTS: Councilman Stephenson offered
Resolution Nos. 72R -47 through 72R -49, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION FOR FUNDS FROM THE CROSSING PROTECTION FUND FOR PROTECTION OF
CROSSING NO. BK -511.3 AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTA-
TION COMPANY TRACKS AT BALL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION FOR FUNDS FROM THE CROSSING PROTECTION FUND FOR PROTECTION OF
CROSSING NO. 2 -169.2 AT THE INTERSECTION OF ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA
FE RAILWAY TRACKS AT BALL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
RESOLUTION N0.72R -49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION FOR FUNDS FROM THE CROSSING PROTECTION FUND FOR PROTECTION OF
CROSSING NO. 2 -168.3 AT THE INTERSECTION OF ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY COMPANY TRACKS AT SOUTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
72 -76
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 72R -47 to 72R -49, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -50 ARTERIAL HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN: Councilman Thom offered
Resolution No. 72R -50 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE TO DELETE A CERTAIN STREET FROM THE COUNTY ARTERIAL HIGHWAY MASTER
PLAN. (West Street, from Lincoln Avenue to La Palma Avenue.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
POLICY OF THE COUNCIL CITY PARTICIPATION IN HILLSIDE ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS: On report
and recommendation of the City Manager, the following Council Policy was adopted
on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth:
A
"It is the policy of the City Council that upon approval of the fin
nancing of any 'hillside' arterial highway amiler construction as a project
under the Orange County Arterial Highway Financing Program the City will par-
ticipate in the cost of the full width grading of the roadway together with
a 24' -wide structural pavement. In the event that no such project be estab-
lished under the Program and the developer elects to proceed with the roadway
construction, the City participation will be limited to the cost of the 24'-
wide structural pavement construction.
City Council approval is required for any exception to this policy."
MOTION CARRIED.
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY: Resolution No. 72 -81, of the Orange County Board
of Supervisors was submitted, extending the time limit to March 10, 1972, in
which the Cities of Orange County shall notify the County as to whether they
desire to participate in the Orange County Housing Authority.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Roth, said
Resolution was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT 1971 CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded
by Councilman Pebley, Report of the City Clerk, outlining the activities of the
City Council for the calendar year 1971, was ordered received and filed. MOTION
CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson:
a. Financial and Operating Reports for the period of November
December, 1971:
Customer Service Division
b. Cultural Arts Commission Minutes January 6, 1972.
c. Riverside County Board of Supervisors Statement of Policies
for the Santa Ana River Corridor for Recreation and Open Space.
d. City of Newport Beach Urging the League of California Cities
and the County Supervisors' Association of California to support an increase
in the amount of funds now being set aside for undergrounding of existing
utility lines. (Resolution No. 7610)
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
e. City of Newport Beach Urging the League of California Cities
and the County Supervisors' Association of California to modify the rules
established by Public Utilities Commission Case No.8209 for undergrounding
existing utility lines. (Resolution No. 7609).
f. City of Costa Mesa Opposing the service of arrest and bench
warrants by the Orange County Marshal's Office. (Resolution No. 72 -15).
MOTION CARRIED.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RESIGNATION: Notification of Magnolia School
District of the Resignation of Trustee B. Donald Pederson from the Parks
and Recreation Commission was ordered received and filed, on motion by Coun-
cilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3011: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3011 for adop-
tion.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION
14.32.160 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RESTRICTED PARKING
3:00 A.M. TO 6 :00 A.M. (Lincoln Avenue, between Helena and Olive; Anaheim
Boulevard, between Broadway and Cypress; Any City -owned Lot; Oak Street,
from Lemon to Helena)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3011 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3012: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3012 for first read-
ing.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-56)(2)- R -3 Tract No. 7219)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61 -62- 69(48) I-1)
72 -77
ORDINANCE NO. 3013: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3013 for first read-
ing.
ORDINANCE NO. 3014: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3014 for first read-
ing.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70 -55(3) ME-1)
HORACE MANN SCHOOL OPTION TO LEASE: The City Manager submitted a proposed
lease and option to lease Horace Mann School from the Anaheim School Dist-
rict, the option to be for a period ending June 30, 1972, at which time,
if not done earlier, a determination can be made as to whether or not the
structure will be leased for use as a Cultural Arts Center. He thereupon
recommended the option be executed.
City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised that if the property is
leased, one condition would be that the City of Anaheim would demolish
the building at termination of the lease. The option will allow approxi-
mately six months to determine if the necessary funds can be raised; there
being no obligation on the part of the City until the option is exercised.
In reply to Councilman Thom, Mr. Murdoch advised that the renova-
tion items listed in the lease are to be financed or done by volunteers
through the efforts of the Foundation currently working on the project,
with the exception of installing and painting the parking lot in front of
the building, which would be done by the City.
72 -78
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute on behalf of the City said
option to lease Horace Mann Sdiool, as recommended by the City Manager. MOTION
CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -51 SALARY, STADIUM AND CONVENTION CENTER PARKING LOT ATTEN-
DANTS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.72R -51 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
NO. 69R -176 AND AMENDING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF
PART -TIME EMPLOYEES NOW EMPLOYED AT THE PARKING LOT OF ANAHEIM STADIUM AND
ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -51 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -52 SALARY, STADIUM AND CONVENTION CENTER EVENT EMPLOYEES:
Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -52 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
NO. 71R -100 AMENDING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AT THE ANAHEIM STA-
DIUM AND ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER.
Roll Cal. 1 Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No.72R -52 duly passed and adopted.
REPORT ELECTRIC BOND SALE PROPOSAL: The City Manager reported that the proposal
for the sale of the Electric Revenue Bonds would be presented to the City Coun-
cil for action on February 15 or 22, 1972.
Finance Director M.R. Ringer presented a graph depicting monthly
average yield of 20 -year Municipal Bonds, which indicated an average yield
of 5.2% on today's market, and advised it was felt Anaheim Electric Revenue
Bonds would be placed in the Double A rating category.
He introduced Charles Mc Fee, Senior Vice President of the West Coast
Regional Office, and Frank Twohy, Vice President of the Bond Counsel firm of
Wainwright Ramsey, which firm has been retained in connection with this is-
sue.
Mr. Ringer outlined the tentative calendar for the sale of the bonds.
Mr. Ringer stated it is anticipated the bonds proceeds will not be
needed until approximately July of 1973, at which time it is hoped the final
Edison acquisition will be culminated, if there are no unforeseen delays.
72 -79
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
He advised that he has recommended a 20 -year Bond Issue Schedule,
which would provide approximately 22% net revenue to the City before prin-
cipal and interest on the bonds, and about 13% after payment of principal
and interest.
He added another reason for choosing a 20 -year period is that it
is felt the facilities to be acquired have a remaining useful life of ap-
proximately 20 years.
Mr. Murdoch stated he felt the 20 -year period fits the program
that the Council and Citizens Committee presented to the general public
that this 20 -year issue would provide for an additional $1,000,000.00 in
the first year after the complete system is taken over, and a 30 -year pro-
gram would unduly increase the amount of interest.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: Mr. Murdoch advised that the estimated cost of under
grounding of 12 KV lines throughout new areas being developed in the Hill
and Canyon area was estimated to cost about $1,100.00 per acre more than
an overhead system; although the additional cost of this undergrounding
would be borne by the properties being developed, the City still would have
its normal cost as for an overhead system.
He further advised that in discussion with the first developers to
be affected by an undergrounding policy, Grant of California, they had in-
dicated a willingness to accept this projected cost and that plans are under
way to also discuss the situation with other developers as soon as possible.
Mr. Murdoch stated that undergrounding of the electrical system
would be implemented by establishment of an underground district; that where
ever an underground district was adopted, all utilities in that area from
that time on would be underground and the cost borne by the developing agency.
He added that the Federal Housing Authority had indicated that if
the City adopts such a policy, where an underground district is formed the
cost of the undergrounding would be underwritten by F.H.A. as a part of the
development cost so that the actual cost eventually would be paid by the pur-
chasers of the homes.
Director of Development Services Alan Orsborn advised that the im-
plementation of this undergrounding would be 66 miles of 12 KV line, through
10- square miles of the Hill and Canyon area; that the necessary less than
4 miles of very high power 69 kv lines in that area are not included in that
cost projection and that it is hoped a substantial portion of the 69 kv lines
could follow the existing Edison easement rather than traverse the territory
at every corner.
Councilman Roth expressed concern that the City has overhead lines
but would require developers to underground theirs.
City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised that an additional matter
for consideration is who would be required to bear the cost of approximately
$30.00 per running foot for installing underground wires for the approxi-
mately 20 miles to where Grant of California will start its undergrounding;
that if the City installs overhead lines to that point and then these are
eventually undergrounded it could mean a double cost to the City.
Councilman Pebley also questioned the advisability of the City
installing overhead lines and requiring developers to underground theirs,
and he did not feel it was equitable to expect citizens of Anaheim to pay
to underground a special area.
Mr. Orsborn advised that there would be no additional cost to
the City itself; that all additional costs would be borne by the developers.
72-80
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
He further advised that the cost to the developer of installing
overhead lines has been reduced through advanced technology from the $200.00
to $250.00 per lot to that now charged of $60.00 per single family unit, and
$20.00 per multiple- family unit, and it is hoped the $1,100.00 estimated cost
for undergrounding eventually can be reduced through the same manner.
Mr. Orsborn stated the need for a decision on policy arose because
Grant of California is ready to record a tract on 32.5 acres of land (Tract
No. 7566, Reclassification No. 71- 72 -15) and the engineers must be able to
set a figure for the bond to be posted for utilities; also, the Telephone
Company has issued a work order for 300 additional lines into the area and
these will be overhead unless a policy to the contrary is established.
Councilman Roth stated he would like a breakdown on costs and other
pertinent material for an undergrounding policy, and also a report and recom-
mendation from the City Attorney's office, prior to any action by the Council.
Mr. Orsborn requested that, in view of the fact that Grant of Cali-
fornia and the Telephone Company would like to have a decision as soon as pos-
sible, the Council instruct the City Attorney's office to draw up the neces-
sary documents for Council action.
Councilman Pebley suggested that if Grant of California agrees, a
figure of $1,100.00 per acre could be used for their tract, and if the Council
determines not to adopt this policy the bond could be returned, or reduced.
Councilmen Stephenson, Thom and Dutton stated that they were in fa-
vor of setting the policy at this time.
Mr. Geisler advised that to establish an underground district in a
new area based on development, it would be necessary for the City to expend
the funds for undergrounding the area now under development, with the money
returned to the City at the time of development. He added that if the Grant
Company desires to install underground lot lines in its development all that
is necessary, under the existing ordinance, is that they put up the money for
it.
In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Orsborn advised that the 10-
square miles being considered at this time are not all within the Anaheim
Hills development, but is the area bounded by Weir Canyon on the east, the
ridge on the south, Peralta Hills on the west, and the River on the north;
that boundaries for an underground district have not been determined; that
the Anaheim Hills Municipal Golf Course could be excluded from such a district,
if desired.
Following Council discussion, the Development Services Department
and City Attorney's office were requested to prepare reports and recommenda-
tions for future Council action.
COUNCILMANIC QUALIFICATION STATEMENT FEES: Request of Donald L. Douglas, dated
January 28, 1972, to reduce the $500.00 deposit required for publication of
a Council candidate's statement of qualifications was submitted, together
with report of the City Clerk.
Mrs. Daoust advised that 9 of the 24 candidates have filed quali-
fication statements to date, with 6 of those also requesting Spanish trans-
lations; that it is possible, but not known, whether the $500.00 deposit will
be sufficient to cover the cost of both Spanish and English translations of
the statement since this is the first time this procedure has been followed.
Following Council discussion, wherein it was noted it was too late
to make any changes for this year's election, Councilman Stephenson moved Mr.
Douglas' request be denied. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
City Hall, Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES February 8, 1972. 1:30 P.M.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD DEPOT: Councilman Roth noted a communication received
from the Public Utilities Commission regarding termination of both freight
and passenger service at the Union Pacific Railroad Depot on the north
side of Lincoln Avenue, and advised that Station Agent Joseph Gonzales
had informed him the station is scheduled to be torn down after service
ends on February 29, 1972.
He stated he felt the building was a landmark of Anaheim and
should be preserved, if possible, and suggested some organization may
want to purchase the building for use since it could not be sold to an
individual, according to railroad policy.
Councilman Pebley commented it may be feasible to move the build-
ing to the east section of the City for use as a temporary library, or pos-
sibly it could be used by the Senior Citizens Club.
Councilman Roth asked that possibilities for using the depot be
kept in mind, since the architecture and materials used make it a desirable
building to retain.
RECESS EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the request of the City Manager, Councilman
Pebley moved to Recess to Executive Session, for the purpose of discuss-
ing a litigation matter. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: At the conclusion of Executive Session, and upon return of all
Councilmen to the Council Chambers, Councilman Thom moved to adjourn to
February 10, 1972, 10 :30 A.M., and also moved waiver of further notice of
said adjournment. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Signed
Adjourned: 4:50 P.M.
City Clerk
72 -81.
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 10, 1972, 10:30 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular
Session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Along M. Farrens
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
RECESS EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Thom moved to Recess to Executive Ses-
sion for the purpose of discussing a litigation matter. Councilman Pebley
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:30 A.M.).
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being
present, with the exception of Councilman Roth. (12:00 Noon.)
LITIGATION LE ROY B. FANTASIA. GUARDIAN. VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: STATE COMPEN-
SATION INSURANC F UND' On recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman Peb-
ley moved to approve settlement of Workmen's Compensation Case No. 71 -ANA
35380, in the matter of Joseph H. Fantasia, authorizing settlement in the
sum of $7,000.00 and authorizing the City Attorney to execute and sign, on
behalf of the City of Anaheim, any and all Compromise and Release and /or
settlement agreements and take whatever seconded
settlement in said Workmen's Comp ensation
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.